Making the difference between Proficient and Non-Proficient Skills matter

[Mongobear]

As the title says, I have an issue starting to arise with the way 5e handles skill checks.

There is very little difference between a proficient character and a non-proficient character making a skill check if they have similar ability scores, atleast until high levels when the Prof Bonus begins to grow, or if Expertise is gained somehow.

What I am looking for is someway to handle situations where a person with skill proficiency actuallys feels better at something as opposed to someone with a somewhat high stat and gets lucky with the d20 roll.

Any ideas?

[Virfortis]

Usually I restrict non-general checks to proficient or not.

Essentially, a lack of proficiency means the character would have no clue how to perform a specialized skill.

Make a basic shelter? Proficiency not required.

Make a good, storm resisting shelter? Proficiency required.

[Mongobear]

It is mostly arising with the "knowledge" checks such as Arcana, Religion, Nature, and History.

There have been times when someone with an 8 Int and zero proficiency wanted to make a check for obscure lore on stuff, and because they rolled really high, they met the DC, but I didnt want to give them the info, since it didnt make ANY sense that they would know this.

I debated changing the DCs, or giving non-proficient people disadvantage, but I can smell the arguments brewing over both of these.

[Virfortis]

Different DCs for proficienct and non-proficient then. If your party can't accept "you didb't study to find out this knowledge" then it's not your problem.

Alternatively, change the success to something less helpful. Maybe instead of the information itself, the low INT player heard a rumor, so now the players must seek out the always unreliable rumor mill.

[Spacehamster]

Anything besides very basic knowledge in history/religion/arcana/nature should be locked out unless the character has proficiency, or you could let them roll but with disadvantage since there is always the slight chance that the character had overheard that piece of lore sometime during his travel.

Also a unskilled success in a knowledge check could be made more incomplete if they do succeed.

[MrStabby]

Make checks harder but more rewarding - or with more opportunities.

A less skilled character making a DC10 check whilst a higher skilled one doesnt is pretty high. On the other hand the lower skilled character being the first to make one out of 5 DC 18 checks is much lower.

[Xethik]

Stealing from 3.X, I don't let players make certain skill or tool checks (Intelligence skills, for example) unless the DC is 10 or lower.

[Tanarii]

Why?

In 5e, Proficiency is intended to be about the equivalent of an ability score, and advance apace with them, from Ability score 14 / prof bonus +2 at 1st level, to 20 / +5 at 12th-13th level. In other words, you are supposed to be just as good if you have a ability score as if you have proficiency with an ability score of 10. And if you have both, twice as good (in terms of total bonus). It's intentional.

Proficiency doesn't mean anything special other than an skill you've chosen to focus on, to get a bonus (from training or blessings of the gods or even just being particularly amazing at that skill) approximately equal to natural talent in the related ability score. And if you already have natural talent, for them to stack.

[Coffee_Dragon]

It's intentional.

Yup. Skills in 5E don't mean hermetic study. It's all adventurer stuff.

If there are specific reasons a character could not know tidbit X, then a roll should not be made in the first place. But in the absence of such reasons, if the proficient character could know, the nonproficient also could.

[Spellbreaker26]

The thing I do is only ask for people to roll if they have particular skills. That is quite controversial, but I find it solves the problem quite handily. The only ones I do not do this with is Stealth and Perception, because they seem more like natural development and less training. Whereas someone who's studied History as a sage is going to know things that someone who has not will not, no matter their natural intelligence.

Besides, Stealth and Perception proficiency is good enough based purely on how often those skills are used.

[MrStabby]

If you do adjust skills, do it between games. Otherwise you are screwing over the characters that didn't dump Intelligence. People did plan characters they would enjoy with the expectation of playing D&D as found in the PHB rather than homebrew rules.

[Tanarii]

The thing I do is only ask for people to roll if they have particular skills. That is quite controversial, but I find it solves the problem quite handily.It's controversial because it breaks the underlying assumptions of 5e and unbalances ability checks from the way they're intended to work.

The last thread on the matter made that clear to me. At first I was open to the idea, but after much debate and people trying (and failing) to defend the position that "proficiency only" checks are an okay thing to do, I went over to the side that it's absolutely a terrible thing to do in 5e.


Yup. Skills in 5E don't mean hermetic study. It's all adventurer stuff.

If there are specific reasons a character could not know tidbit X, then a roll should not be made in the first place. But in the absence of such reasons, if the proficient character could know, the nonproficient also could.
Well put. But to expand ... all ability checks are supposed to be about adventurer stuff. That all adventurers can do to some degree, regardless of if they have proficiency or not.

[Ruslan]

Yeah, in 5E the difference between proficient and nonproficient is not supposed to be as pronounced as, for example, 3.5 - where as soon as level 1, the difference is +4, and scales with levels to (level+3), eg. +23 on level 20. The fact the non-proficient characters can participate, and occasionally even upstage the proficient ones - when the Barbarian with Int 8 rolls 20, and the proficient Wizard with Int 18 rolls a 2 - are by design. True, sometimes they lead to situations that don't make sense, but hey, it's an RPG, a lot of things don't make sense, and overall it's a small price to pay for playing a game as streamlined and player-friendly as 5E.

So, you have several choices:

1. Houserule heavily. "Proficiency now means +7, not +2"

2. Lean on DM fiat heavily. "The barbarian can't know this thing. It's just not in character for him"

3. Fume and complain whenever those situations occur.

4. Relax and enjoy the game... As the wizard is stumped by the question, the barbarian recalls something a wandering shaman once told him about <whatever>. Once he relays it to the wizard, the latter smacks his forehead - of course!

[Spellbreaker26]

It's controversial because it breaks the underlying assumptions of 5e and unbalances ability checks from the way they're intended to work.

Well then I guess I have different assumptions about 5e, but I've always found that it makes it work smoother. To me, proficiencies are integral parts of character backstory and the more important they are the more that character shines through; a character that took History to break fighter stereotype is now much more distinctive, because his roll is more important.

Plus it makes setting DCs much simpler for the DM.

A character that has had ten years in a college learning arcana is going to be flat out better than some random guy. This system is just more believable, and encourages people to be more creative in their character building, rather than just not caring because a +2 is not going to make a difference anyway.

[Spacehamster]

It's controversial because it breaks the underlying assumptions of 5e and unbalances ability checks from the way they're intended to work.

The last thread on the matter made that clear to me. At first I was open to the idea, but after much debate and people trying (and failing) to defend the position that "proficiency only" checks are an okay thing to do, I went over to the side that it's absolutely a terrible thing to do in 5e.


Well put. But to expand ... all ability checks are supposed to be about adventurer stuff. That all adventurers can do to some degree, regardless of if they have proficiency or not.

Nope, just nope....

Blorgh the 8 INT half Orc barbarian is not supposed to be able to tell the origin of mysterious building X in the middle of nowhere, blorgh barely knows the names of surrounding settlements while Ervin the wizard scholar with 18 INT and prof in history probably would know.

At least for me as both DM and player things like that completely breaks immersion. Some skills are for everyone trained or no but lore and advanced crafting stuff that you learn through study should stay within proficiency, else it completely removes any reason to take history or nature and similar proffesions.

Ofc everyone plays and DM's differently but I think it's silly that a feeble minded barbarian would possess the same knowledge as a learned man, learned man is smarter, blorgh knows how to break things better. :)

[Coffee_Dragon]

Ofc everyone plays and DM's differently but I think it's silly that a feeble minded barbarian would possess the same knowledge as a learned man, learned man is smarter, blorgh knows how to break things better. :)

So basically you're saying to the barbarian, "Look, your Int 10 just doesn't seem like a whole lot next to the party wizard's Int 16 as far as I'm concerned, so I'm going to treat you like you have Int 6, here, let me just write that on your character sheet."

You're redefining what it means to have a certain value in a stat and/or proficiency, and instead of recalibrating your assumptions based on the output of the system, you decide the output is absurd and tweak the system with informal constraints until no undesired output can make it through.

[Spellbreaker26]

So basically you're saying to the barbarian, "Look, your Int 10 just doesn't seem like a whole lot next to the party wizard's Int 16 as far as I'm concerned, so I'm going to treat you like you have Int 6, here, let me just write that on your character sheet."

You're redefining what it means to have a certain value in a stat and/or proficiency, and instead of recalibrating your assumptions based on the output of the system, you decide the output is absurd and tweak the system with informal constraints until no undesired output can make it through.

No, we're saying that the person who put resources into a topic on a character sheet gets to have a go and the person who didn't didn't. After all, if we do it your way then even that 6 INT Barbarian could have a go as well.

That Intelligence will be important for saving throws and straight out ability checks (which should be used more). But if he didn't pick up any history he's going to have no chance. Either proficiency represents training and not having it means there's a huge gulf or it represents mere familiarity in which case the person who has it has no familiarity at all, and has even less of an excuse to have a go.

In your system, History, Arcana and Religion proficiency are completely useless compared to six characters having a go because with sheer numbers they've got a great chance. My system means characters have to work to maximize their chances and places more weight on individuals and their differences.

I'd take the Intelligence ability score being slightly worse and the knowledge proficiencies actually being worth a darn than intelligence being great and those proficiencies being hogwash.

[BW022]

...
Any ideas?

Sure.

1. Don't Roll. Use passive values. Give the information/knowledge before they roll. This works well for perception, knowledge, and other checks where folks aren't trying to do something specific. If something isn't that pressing, allow the passive value for something with little risk of failure -- a DC 10 swim when the person is +5, etc.

2. Roll Secretly or use Pre-rolls. Either roll for the players or ask for a series of rolls ahead of time. This works well for checks which they don't know if they are successful or not -- typically non-physical skills. Then, simply describe what each character knows/learns, etc. Don't give any sense of who rolled well. This has a couple of effects... most notably that players can't meta-game bad rolls and given to different opinions, they'll often accept that of the PC who is skilled anyway. For example, if five PCs want to know which way is north... the nature cleric (with survival), the wise monk (without survival), and the wizards (low wisdom and survival) and decide on different directions. By default... players will likely assume that the nature cleric is correct and overtime stop rolling as it doesn't help.

3. Penalize Failure. If someone rolls really low (sub 5) give them wrong or misleading information or have some effect from the failure -- fall while climbing, think they hear goblins and not ogres, they follow the wrong tracks, they end up dropping something while swimming, etc.

4. Reward Big Success. If someone gets a 25+ give them something good. Since these are only generally reachable by someone with proficiency, let them have something good.

5. Don't worry about setting higher DCs for tasks.

6. Encourage aiding another. This generally forces players to rely on the most skilled person and their rolls simply aid him (or not).

7. Reward Roll-Playing / Penalize Metagaming. This is easier with hidden rolls, but if players roll a 2, you tell them that "They are sure werewolves are affected by iron."... don't let them pull out silver or suddenly switch to fire spells. Reward them with XP if they accurately play their knowledge.

[Mjolnirbear]

If I feel the knowledge is specific, I require proficiency, or a background reason.

"I tie his hands" anyone can try.
"I tie his hands and feet using constructive slip knots that get tighter the more you struggle" do you have proficiency in knots? Do you have, say, a sailor background or a hunter background (tying snares)? Do you have class levels in Weaver or racial studies? Then no.

This way anyone can try the simple stuff. The hard stuff, you can try if you are proficient or your race/class/background logically leads to the possibility of it being 'simple for you' .

[Mongobear]

Yeah, in 5E the difference between proficient and nonproficient is not supposed to be as pronounced as, for example, 3.5 - where as soon as level 1, the difference is +4, and scales with levels to (level+3), eg. +23 on level 20. The fact the non-proficient characters can participate, and occasionally even upstage the proficient ones - when the Barbarian with Int 8 rolls 20, and the proficient Wizard with Int 18 rolls a 2 - are by design. True, sometimes they lead to situations that don't make sense, but hey, it's an RPG, a lot of things don't make sense, and overall it's a small price to pay for playing a game as streamlined and player-friendly as 5E.

So, you have several choices:

1. Houserule heavily. "Proficiency now means +7, not +2"

2. Lean on DM fiat heavily. "The barbarian can't know this thing. It's just not in character for him"

3. Fume and complain whenever those situations occur.

4. Relax and enjoy the game... As the wizard is stumped by the question, the barbarian recalls something a wandering shaman once told him about <whatever>. Once he relays it to the wizard, the latter smacks his forehead - of course!

I am basically looking at these exact options right now.

I dislike the idea of 1, but it might be needed.

I want to use 2, but a few players have been arguing against it for 2 days now and I literally cant try any harder to explain it or why it's the best option. (imo)

I am currently playing via option 3 right now. with the 8 Int Barbarian having just recalled 3000 year old ancient lore on a carving found in the last dungeon.

I wish #4 was possible, but I just cant with how these things work right now.




Blorgh the 8 INT half Orc barbarian is not supposed to be able to tell the origin of mysterious building X in the middle of nowhere, Blorgh barely knows the names of surrounding settlements while Ervin the wizard scholar with 18 INT and prof in history probably would know.

At least for me as both DM and player things like that completely breaks immersion. Some skills are for everyone trained or no but lore and advanced crafting stuff that you learn through study should stay within proficiency, else it completely removes any reason to take history or nature and similar proffesions.


Almost the exact situation that occured that made this entire topic arise. I would almost swear you are a part of my group.


So basically you're saying to the barbarian, "Look, your Int 10 just doesn't seem like a whole lot next to the party wizard's Int 16 as far as I'm concerned, so I'm going to treat you like you have Int 6, here, let me just write that on your character sheet."

You're redefining what it means to have a certain value in a stat and/or proficiency, and instead of recalibrating your assumptions based on the output of the system, you decide the output is absurd and tweak the system with informal constraints until no undesired output can make it through.

No, he is saying "Hey, your Barbarian in pretty dumb, and you already have trouble remembering which way is north, how to tie your shoes, and you can barely read. There is just no way I can justify you knowing this piece of obscure information no living person on the planet can know."

The problem I want addressed is that there isn't any definition in what proficiency actually means, compared to just being naturally gifted with a stat. Expertise sort of gets to what I wish was baked into the core rules for everyone, but as is, the highest non-Expertise modifier you can get is +11, you can be +5 just out of sheer happenstance of having a high ability score. This means that at absolute maximums, the most learned man on the planet in a certain field is only 30% smarter than Joe Schmo with a high attribute, but literally no exposure to that field, let alone Forrest Gump who has a -1 to the same check, but because he rolled well, gets a higher result than Einstein.

[Ruslan]

A character that has had ten years in a college learning arcanaThat's not what proficiency in Arcana represents. It does not represent a college professor. It represent someone who is, first and foremost, an adventurer, and who also happens to know a bit about Arcana. Well, a bit more than the character who's not proficient (who, by the way, is also an adventurer, and those are known to pick bits and pieces of information all around).


I want to use 2, but a few players have been arguing against it for 2 days now and I literally cant try any harder to explain it or why it's the best option. (imo)
There's a Russian saying, "If multiple people tell you you're drunk, then you are." (trust Russians to have a saying about being drunk). Maybe it's time to stop explaining and start listening to them?


I wish #4 was possible, but I just cant with how these things work right now.It is possible. Don't be a slave to your own assumption. You just assumed proficiency means <something> , and whenever <something else> comes up via a die roll, you suffer a cognitive dissonance. Just have the courage to admit it's not what you assumed. They are adventurers. They pick up stuff here and there. It's ok if the barbarian occasionally knows stuff. Nothing bad happened.

[Coffee_Dragon]

No, we're saying that the person who put resources into a topic on a character sheet gets to have a go and the person who didn't didn't.

Obviously putting resources towards something makes you largely proportionally better at it. You're taking it a step further by pushing down the baseline for anyone who doesn't meet some informal requirements to make the investments better by contrast. Great, but that's not the system, and you should let your players know, so they can dump everything as low as it can go if they're not boosting it, because a middling stat doesn't even have its nominal value.


In your system, History, Arcana and Religion proficiency are completely useless compared to six characters having a go because with sheer numbers they've got a great chance.

If you feel that's completely useless, sure.

[Gignere]

I think this is something both players and DMs should cooperate to find a good compromise. Like when the DM calls for a survival check I don't fight to roll one with my wizard because I role play one that is not proficient. Imagine if you never went camping you wouldn't try to start the fire if you had Les Stroud with you.

Same with lore rolls with my buddy the half orc barbarian. He wouldn't wonder what the hell the thing with 4 arms, two of them crab claws is. He just buries axe to its face so he doesn't even attempt a roll. I feel more role playing and less roll playing makes a lot of sense.

Even on search rolls, if there is potential for trap leave it to the rogue and me the wizard as a tandem search team, the rogue helps me to give me advantage and move on. On locks the role is reversed.

On climbing a wall we just let the barbarian take it and then pull the rest of the team up. We try and see who seems to be the most natural fit to roll make the roll it isn't a competition, it is cooperation.

[Coffee_Dragon]

No, he is saying "Hey, your Barbarian in pretty dumb, and you already have trouble remembering which way is north, how to tie your shoes, and you can barely read.

Are these things that are true for a Barbarian with Int 10 and no History proficiency?


There is just no way I can justify you knowing this piece of obscure information no living person on the planet can know."

Well, if the proficient character doesn't get to roll either then I have no complaints.

[DanyBallon]

A skill check must be made only if there's a chance of success or failure. If you 18 INT wizard that spent is whole life learning about all the aspects of Arcana and a commoner with a 10 INT face a magical phenomenon, the wizard by it's vast study arcana shouldn't have to roll anything to identify the phenomenon. While the commoner could have a chance to guess on how common the magical phenomenon is. If it was uncommon enough so the wizard needs to roll an Arcana check as there's chance that he misidentify what's happening here, then the DC should be high enough that it's hard for the proficient wizard to achieve (otherwise he wouldn't needed to roll), and with such a DC, it's mostly impossible for the commoner. Or you could just rule out the commoner, because there's absolutely no chance that he will know about that unique phenomenon.

The important aspect of 5e skill checks to remember is that you are only needed to roll if there's a chance of failure, or success.

[Ruslan]

The problem I want addressed is that there isn't any definition in what proficiency actually meansIt means being just sufficiently trained in a skill to receive a +2 bonus (which on higher levels scales to a +6). That's it, no more and no less. You are trained just well enough to justify a +2. That's what proficiency means.

EDIT:

By the way, for the record, I am not averse to stealing the "Trained Only" rule from 3.5e. For those who don't know, some skills are defined as "Trained Only", and characters not trained in those skills automatically fail checks of DC greater than 10. (Joe Shmoe can still try to answer very basic questions).

That's it, one simple house rule. It's clear, concise, and more or less fair. "Trained Only" skills could be Arcana, History, Religion, probably Nature, Survival and Medicine as well, although it's negotiable. Of course, if you do implement this rule, Proficiency will mean something different than it does now.

[Mongobear]

Are these things that are true for a Barbarian with Int 10 and no History proficiency?



Well, if the proficient character doesn't get to roll either then I have no complaints.

Except, he does because that proficiency means he has actually encountered, studied, or otherwise dealt with something similar.

He may have come across a dusty old book in a Library with a picture of this McGuffin, his mentor might have told him a story about the people who made it and left the PC his notes after his death, or any number of things that allows the trained PC to make the check.

I think I have narrowed it down from a previous comment, I want a way to not break the Immersion of the setting as opposed to sticking with the Machanics as they're written, because they blatantly break Immersion every time 'Blorgh the Barbarian' tells the tale of a legendary prophecy that nobody on the planet has heard of, but he just happens to know it because reasons.

[Ziegander]

Do you find equally horrific when the wizard swings a maul with 8 strength and crits for 4d6 damage? Do you say, well, you're not proficient with the maul, so you can't crit and if the enemy has AC greater than 10 you automatically miss?

[Ruslan]

Except, he does because that proficiency means he has actually encountered, studied, or otherwise dealt with something similar.You just said "no living person on the planet can know". Now you're backpedaling into "anyone proficient can possibly know." That's a huge difference. No wonder you're suffering such cognitive dissonance, you yourself don't know what effect you want to achieve.


'Blorgh the Barbarian' tells the tale of a legendary prophecy that nobody on the planet has heard of, but he just happens to know it because reasons his tribe elders used to whisper when he was a child.Fixed that for you.

[Gignere]

Do you find equally horrific when the wizard swings a maul with 8 strength and crits for 4d6 damage? Do you say, well, you're not proficient with the maul, so you can't crit and if the enemy has AC greater than 10 you automatically miss?

Yes I do, but that is because chances are the wizard will die after rolling double natural 20s. Even at level 5 I feel like anything looks at my PC funny can kill him.

I have no problem if PCs gets disadvantage on non-proficient skill checks just like weapon attacks. That is probably an elegant solution that would discourage a lot of rolling when PC is not proficient.

[Ruslan]

Yes I do, but that is because chances are the wizard will die after rolling double natural 20s. Even at level 5 I feel like anything looks at my PC funny can kill him.

I have no problem if PCs gets disadvantage on non-proficient skill checks just like weapon attacks. That is probably an elegant solution that would discourage a lot of rolling when PC is not proficient.

There is no disadvantage on nonproficient weapon attacks. It's not a thing. You just ... don't get to add your proficiency bonus. That's all.

[Gignere]

There is no disadvantage on nonproficient weapon attacks. It's not a thing. You just ... don't get to add your proficiency bonus. That's all.

Lol we've been doing it wrong as a table 😜

[Spellbreaker26]

Obviously putting resources towards something makes you largely proportionally better at it. You're taking it a step further by pushing down the baseline for anyone who doesn't meet some informal requirements to make the investments better by contrast. Great, but that's not the system, and you should let your players know, so they can dump everything as low as it can go if they're not boosting it, because a middling stat doesn't even have its nominal value.

If you feel that's completely useless, sure.

That's not the original rules, but I don't feel the original rules work in this regard. I've heard complaints before, and this guy is clearly complaining as well, so people obviously think that they matter.

I usually prefer rolling for stats anyway; but I will take your advice and before starting my game will let my players know that they will be playing in a game world that makes some logical sense.


Are these things that are true for a Barbarian with Int 10 and no History proficiency?

Well, if the proficient character doesn't get to roll either then I have no complaints.

Let's take this from the top with Arcana. Either Arcana is advanced magic, and the gulf between someone who knows it and someone who doesn't is very large, or it is the basics (as has been said repeatedly by many people), and someone without it has no chance at all because they have no starting point whatsoever. They may all be adventurers, but if you don't know even the beginnings of how magic works you're not going to be able to succeed where someone who does will fail. An INT 10 Barbarian is no fool but neither does he have the required specialist knowledge to even begin to attempt something like this.

Adventuring isn't a pub quiz. Your character may very well have times when he is not able to contribute much, and some where he isn't going to contribute anything at all. Instead of smushing together all the characters and making the DM's job really hard and players who put a lot of resources into a particular build feel frustrated, how about make this small change to make everyone's life easier. Imagine if everyone tried to do the stealth mission, or everyone wanted to be the face, or what have you. It's ridiculous. So why should everyone get a shot at figuring out the bas-relief on the tomb wall even though they manifestly should not be able to do that?

[DanyBallon]

Except, he does because that proficiency means he has actually encountered, studied, or otherwise dealt with something similar.

He may have come across a dusty old book in a Library with a picture of this McGuffin, his mentor might have told him a story about the people who made it and left the PC his notes after his death, or any number of things that allows the trained PC to make the check.

I think I have narrowed it down from a previous comment, I want a way to not break the Immersion of the setting as opposed to sticking with the Machanics as they're written, because they blatantly break Immersion every time 'Blorgh the Barbarian' tells the tale of a legendary prophecy that nobody on the planet has heard of, but he just happens to know it because reasons.

The rules says that if there is a reason for your character to already know the answer without any chance of failure, then you don't need to roll, you remember it right away. If on the other hand you think that the character might know the answer but it's quite obscure and may not remember, then you set a DC appropriately and anyone can roll, usually the DC is high enough (DC20) that only the proficient character will be able to beat it. Blorgh may still have a lucky guess, but it may be because he hear a legend about it. Still it won't happen often (as long as you don't ask for roll for everything, remember, only if there's a chance of failure)

[Mjolnirbear]

Do you find equally horrific when the wizard swings a maul with 8 strength and crits for 4d6 damage? Do you say, well, you're not proficient with the maul, so you can't crit and if the enemy has AC greater than 10 you automatically miss?

False equivalence. Said wizard is not proficient in mauls and so has disadvantage. If he *still* crits? Yes, he's earned it.

Assuming it's a weapon both are proficient in, then yes, because they are both proficient. Because they have both trained in it.

You could have unproficient skills roll with disadvantage. That'd be equivalent at least. But attacks aren't skills, any more than saves are, or damage rolls. Just because d20+prof+bonus is the standard for anything where the outcome is in doubt does not mean they are all the same rules.

[JackPhoenix]

Memory is an interesting thing. In our life, whether we like it or not, we gather huge amount of information, some important, some useless for our needs. Yes, we live in different age and information are much easier to get than in the pseudo-medieval fantasy worlds of D&D, but in such times, storytelling was one of the few available means of entertainment. It is entirely possible that the barbarian heard story, rumor, ancient song/poem, whatever, while the wizard, despite all his studies, missed it. And sometime, despite you knowing you've learned the information, you can't remember exact details, or you don't remember you've learned that thing at all. Someone else saying something can give you mental kick needed to retrieve that information from your mind. How often you've tried to come up with an answer to something with no success, only to randomly realise it hours or days later while doing something entirely unrelated? (or just after you've gave the test to the teacher after trying to answer that one stupid question for half hour)

All right, the wizard is proficient in Arcana... but does that mean he's supposed to know anything that there possibly is to know about that subject? Let's look at, say, physics professor: does he know anything about physics? Of course not, "physics" is covers a large amount of knowledge, much larger than what a single human can remember... it's kindy why we divide it into subcategories, quantum physics, thermophysics, etc... Why is it so hard to accept that the wizard doesn't know the answer to some question, because his studies focused more on planar theory and evocation magic, while the barbarian heard the song about some legendary warrior's battle with a dark mage who used magical artifact described similarily to the thing you've found to conquer the land?

I talked with my high-scool physics teacher about something concerning space flight. He was certainly proficient in (physics) and I have no doubt his Intelligence was higher than mine too. But he still had to search both for the answer to my question AND to check if some things I said I knew were true. If I, average Int student with no proficiency knew things my teacher didn't, why can't barbarian know something the wizard doesn't?

If the topic is so obscure, it's propably a hard question... that's DC 20-24. The best result barbarian with negative Int mod can get is 19. He can't ever know the answer, unless he gets proficiency or increases his Int, i.e. makes some actual effort. If the DC was lower, the question propably wasn't that hard to begin with, and even experts may not remember (if perhaps only momentarily) answers to easy questions because they haven't really needed that knowledge since they left the school.

[MrStabby]

Maybe int scores are closer together than you think? It could be that a 16 isnt that much smarter than a 10 - enough smarter to make an appreciable difference -like a 20% increase in the probability of knowing a given fact.

As to what people could know - well that comes down to character background. Unless you are writing your players backgrounds for them there is no reason why a barbarian shouldn't enjoy reading. Telling a player that their upbringing didn't include reading is the kind of DMing that gets players to walk.

Proficiency works pretty well as it scales. You start off at level 1 with a pronounced interest in a number of fields. As you progress through the game the interest scales up into deeper and deeper knowledge. At level 10 those areas in which you have an interest are those areas in which you have a substantial bonus. That the bonus is smaller at those levels in which you have only just begun to show your interest is not a bug but a feature.

[Spellbreaker26]

Maybe int scores are closer together than you think? It could be that a 16 isnt that much smarter than a 10 - enough smarter to make an appreciable difference -like a 20% increase in the probability of knowing a given fact.



20 is the maximum possible for most humans, so we should expect this to be very prodigious indeed. 10 is the average, so as you go up each rung gets exponentially rarer. (Though this may not be a correct interpretation).

[MrStabby]

20 is the maximum possible for most humans, so we should expect this to be very prodigious indeed. 10 is the average, so as you go up each rung gets exponentially rarer. (Though this may not be a correct interpretation).

20 is the highest that is common enough among people prepared to go adventuring and that is also sufficiently common as to be worth representing with a score. I am not saying 20 isn't smart - but smart for a suicidal adventurer might be something like a conventional IQ of 130-140 - smart but not super smart.

[Ruslan]

It's a fantasy world. Normal IQ distribution from the world we know may or may not apply. Anyway, this is just going in circles. You made a set of assumptions about how it's supposed to work, and are unaccepting of any system output that doesn't mesh with the assumptions.

If it's easier for you to build a new system that will match exactly your assumptions than admit that perhaps it does not mean what you think it means, by all means, go ahead.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Adventuring isn't a pub quiz.

Ah, but it is. :smalltongue: And you know why it must be? Because the character with the Sage background and Arcana proficiency isn't a literal bearded sage who's memorized every book from here to there either. They have absorbed exactly as much extra knowledge as is represented by +2 plus their Int modifier if any. If it takes an actual sage to have a chance, they can't do it either.

Any character can have heard fascinating stories from a passing bard.
Any character can have looked in some random book of interest (yes, even a "barbarian").
Any character can have observed mystical carvings on a cliffside.
Any character can have heard weird tidings from a grizzled traveller.
Any character can have found an old scroll in a dusty corner.
Any character can have heard the old miller raving about the great glabrezu sighting of forty years ago.
Any character can have seen ancient symbols woven into local tapestries.
Et cetera.
And then the character with proficiency learned some stuff on top of this. They get to add their proficiency bonus, yay!

But tell you what, I should go back and finish a reply I started on in that other thread, and then we can have this discussion in stereo.


Maybe int scores are closer together than you think? It could be that a 16 isnt that much smarter than a 10 - enough smarter to make an appreciable difference -like a 20% increase in the probability of knowing a given fact.

I'm pretty sure this is the case. I often get the impression people think Int can be mapped onto IQ by multiplying with 10, except that's clearly absurd.

[JackPhoenix]

You know, the real question is "Why is the non-proficient barbarian with negative Int mod rolling for himself instead of using Help action to give someone more knowledgable advantage on his roll"? d20 + lot with an advantege > better from d20 + lot and d20 - something.

It worked for doctor House:
*House tries to resolve the case of the week for 3/4 hour with no success*
*Random janitor walks by and says something unrelated 5 minutes before the end of the episode*
*House:* "That's it! It really is lupus this time!"

[eastmabl]

Don't say no. Have players justify why their characters might know something about the arcane arts.

- If they give a really good reason, give them advantage.
- If they give an acceptable reason, have them roll.
- If they give no reason or a bad reason, impose disadvantage.

Also, tailor their response back to the character itself. The barbarian's interaction with arcane arts is going to be markedly different from the wizard.

Barbarian: "Reaching out to the orb, you feel the hairs on the back of your neck stick up. You brace yourself for a zap, but yank your hand away."
Wizard: "When wielded, this orb allowed the Sorcerer-King to electrocute those who dared touch his deified form."

[Telok]

If you want to avoid the "halfling wiz wins arm wrestling vs a giant 10% of the time" you have several options.

1: House rule redefine what proficency is. This is the "no roll/disadvantage" solution. You will need to make additional rulings about bards and spells.
2: House rule checks based on background and backstory. You need to make the same rulings as #1 and make people write backstory.
3: Throw out the d20 for skill/stat checks. Part of the issue isn't that the weak, clumsy, guy occasionally out acrobats the trained professionals. It's that it happens so often as to be a predictable outcome that you have to plan for. Use 2d10 or 3d6, check anydice.com or google for the distributions of numbers.

[Tanarii]

No, we're saying that the person who put resources into a topic on a character sheet gets to have a go and the person who didn't didn't. After all, if we do it your way then even that 6 INT Barbarian could have a go as well.Players do put resources into ability scores, not just proficiencies. And the value of those resources is deemed to be equal. You can either put points into an ability score, or put points in a skill, or both. Your skill level is supposed to be a combination of both.

When you start calling for proficiency only checks, you are denying those who invested in an ability score the mechanical benefit their investment is supposed to have accrued, based on a preconcieved notion that skill proficiency > ability score. It's changing the entire balance of the system.

Note that the designers intended that even if your character doesn't have a background in something, you should still get to make checks without proficiency, see the "background proficiency" variant in the DMG.

If you're running in to problems with all your players making checks on something being too high odds of success, that's because you're calling for checks inappropriately. If everyone can make a check to remember something and there's no penalty for failure, there absolutely should be a almost certain chance of success. "one success to rule them all" checks should just be automatic success most of the time. Meaningful checks are failures have consequences checks: group checks because the worse people drag down the better, bad things happening to individuals that fail checks (consequences for failure on an individual level), or failing to help penalizing checks (disadvantage instead of advantage).

[Xetheral]

Well put. But to expand ... all ability checks are supposed to be about adventurer stuff. That all adventurers can do to some degree, regardless of if they have proficiency or not.


It represent someone who is, first and foremost, an adventurer, and who also happens to know a bit about Arcana. Well, a bit more than the character who's not proficient (who, by the way, is also an adventurer, and those are known to pick bits and pieces of information all around).

I reject the premise that the PCs are all professional adventurers. In many (most?) fantasy settings, a professional adventurer isn't a thing one can be in the first place. In such cases, the PCs tend to be exceptional individuals who, through chance or choice, happen to embark on an adventure despite having no prior experience doing so.

So no, I can't agree that proficiency is supposed to merely represent an adventurer who knows a little bit more than other adventurers on a specific topic. Such an assumption excludes too many of the possible stories from D&D.

[mephnick]

I reject the premise that the PCs are all professional adventurers.
So no, I can't agree that proficiency is supposed to merely represent an adventurer who knows a little bit more than other adventurers on a specific topic. Such an assumption excludes too many of the possible stories from D&D.

Then you are likely playing the wrong system. D&D at its core is about adventurers who explore sites and fight monsters. Just because misguided people have been trying to warp the game into something it's not for decades (let's do a political mystery campaign! Barf..) doesn't mean they're justified. There are systems designed to tell the stories of people who are not adventurers but D&D 5e is not one of them.

[Kane0]

Could always just give partial responses.

Maybe the barbarian doesn't know All of the Answers! but he could chip in what he does know and help out by way of advantage, a reroll, a static bonus, whatever makes sense to you.
And even of the person who 'should' be making the check doesn't roll good enough at least you have something to work with. It doesn't have to be a completely binary 'You know all about it' / 'You have NFI'

[MeeposFire]

Something I do is that in certain situations the difficulty of the check is made easier or harder by being proficient or not in a skill (in my mind proficiency is indeed a measure of training and/or practice in a certain skill).

For example a question about arcana is brought up. The barbarian decides he wants to see if he knows the answer. The barbarian has not made himself proficient with arcana so essentially he is hoping he may have heard it in a conversation some where. That makes the check very difficult because the barbarian is only relying on having possibly hearing of this (luck) and remembering (int). The fighter trained in arcana it is not such a difficult question as it is a standard bit of knowledge if you know the craft but esoteric if you don't. In this case the check is easier and his extra skill compounds this easier difficulty making him much more likely to make the check than the barbarian. For the fighter the question is just an easier situation since it is a standard part of the craft (lower DC), he still needs to have known it exists (luck), he needs to be smart enough to remember it (int), and with his proficiency he improves his chances by using his training to supplement his natural ability (prof).


One thing to remember difficulty of the check is not based on your overall modifier (as odd as it sounds). Just because you have a high modifier does not change a difficult task to an easier one the DC remains whatever you decide the difficulty to be. The high modifier determines your success at that difficulty.

As an aside I do not make the change in difficulty insurmountable (such as making one DC10 and the other 30 that would be unfair though it could be 10 and 15 for instance). I am also still allowing non-proficient skill users to still make checks in nearly all occasions they just do so sometimes at different difficulties.

So I say make use of that and reward people for choosing their skills but this also leaves it open for anybody to try and still have a chance to succeed. I think that makes it a best for both worlds with only a slightly higher burden on the DM (though I do not find it really that much more).

[Pex]

All these problems and differences of opinions and differing solutions. If only the game designers, whose job it was to design the game, actually designed the game instead of everyone having to do it themselves and relearn how to play the game depending on who the DM is.

[Kane0]

You know as a brewer I much prefer working with 5e over 3e. I'm given plenty enough to work with without being stifled and requiring manual or three on hand to recall and crosscheck everything.
Being able (or required) to interpret isnt necessarily a downside.

[MeeposFire]

Wait this is a problem? We all get to address things as we like. I am not really into doing a rehash of 3e skills again thank you very much. Way too many tables and crazy DCs that made playing a chore. Give me a simple choice of how difficult I think something should be and use that and I am happy.

4e sort of straddles the two since it continues to improve with your level but many of your checks will often be made against leveled up challenges and if not then it quickly becomes no need to roll (which in many ways mirrors what happens in 5e if you remove the sheer leveling bonuses and if you are particular with skill DCs but now you do not need giant numbers to challenge high level characters and everybody has a chance).

[HidesHisEyes]

That's not what proficiency in Arcana represents. It does not represent a college professor. It represent someone who is, first and foremost, an adventurer, and who also happens to know a bit about Arcana. Well, a bit more than the character who's not proficient (who, by the way, is also an adventurer, and those are known to pick bits and pieces of information all around).

There's a Russian saying, "If multiple people tell you you're drunk, then you are." (trust Russians to have a saying about being drunk). Maybe it's time to stop explaining and start listening to them?

It is possible. Don't be a slave to your own assumption. You just assumed proficiency means <something> , and whenever <something else> comes up via a die roll, you suffer a cognitive dissonance. Just have the courage to admit it's not what you assumed. They are adventurers. They pick up stuff here and there. It's ok if the barbarian occasionally knows stuff. Nothing bad happened.

I think you've got to the heart of it right here. The fact that the game is supposed to be about a group of adventurers often gets lost.

[HidesHisEyes]

Then you are likely playing the wrong system. D&D at its core is about adventurers who explore sites and fight monsters. Just because misguided people have been trying to warp the game into something it's not for decades (let's do a political mystery campaign! Barf..) doesn't mean they're justified. There are systems designed to tell the stories of people who are not adventurers but D&D 5e is not one of them.

You, me, Ruslan and Angry GM... Anyone else want to join my fantasy dream team group where Dungeons and Dragons is about dungeons and dragons instead of con artists and political intrigue? 😉

[djreynolds]

As the title says, I have an issue starting to arise with the way 5e handles skill checks.

There is very little difference between a proficient character and a non-proficient character making a skill check if they have similar ability scores, atleast until high levels when the Prof Bonus begins to grow, or if Expertise is gained somehow.

What I am looking for is someway to handle situations where a person with skill proficiency actuallys feels better at something as opposed to someone with a somewhat high stat and gets lucky with the d20 roll.

Any ideas?

Just because they succeed doesn't give them a deeper understanding of said knowledge.


But if the whole party is searching for clues in a library and the barbarian gets lucky and finds this book and runs over to the wizard, hey is this it.... and wizard goes yes it is and slams the book and runs out to his car and drives home...

Luck and chance must be taken into consideration, otherwise don't even roll dice.

But everyone can try a skill check, and the best can fail and the worst can succeed. Just ask Casey at bat.

Also have down time and cross training. The barbarian has the wizard doing chin ups, and the wizard is teaching him math or science. Have the players positively affect each other.

[JellyPooga]

My first rule of GMing is "Be Permissive, not Dismissive", so I'm uneasy with the notion of dissallowing our hypothetical Barbarian to even attempt an untrained Arcana check. Having said that, an understanding of appropriate DC's is practically a requirement for any GM.

I quite like this "D&D: Pub Quiz" analogy...your average pub quiz in your average british pub (can't speak for outside the uk) might have 5 teams of 4. That (conveniently) gives us 20 "players". Most questions asked in a pub quiz can be answered by at least 1 "player" in a (decent) team. These are the questions with a DC of 17 or lower. Some questions are tough and maybe only two or three guys in the pub (with a little mental jostling and help from his friends) will get them. This is the DC 18-20 range. Other questions simply require specialised knowledge or a memory like a sponge. Anything with DC:21+ is literally impossible without proficiency, Int 12+ or outside help (such as divine Guidance).

As a GM it's important to know when to pull out those DC:20+ checks. A lvl.1 Wizard will hit a DC:20 Arcana check 50% of the time assuming he has Advantage, proficiency and Int:16. An Int 8 non-proficient Barbarian will never hit that DC:20. Ever.

If, however, you really want to increase the significance of proficiency vs. non-proficiency, there's a house-rule I've been toying with in my head. Each skill you have proficiency in has a pool of "auto-pass" points equal to the modifier of its related Ability Score. These would refresh on a long rest and allow you to spend them (before or after the roll) to automatically suceed on a skill test assuming it was possible for you in the first place (i.e. treat your roll as a 20). This is a very empowering house-rule; perhaps too empowering, but it would really emphasise the importance of proficiency over non-proficiency. If you use it, just be careful not to make the game too binary because of it.

[MrStabby]

Well it sounds like the OP's players are resistant to changing it so their ability scores matter less. It may just be that it is time for the group to find a new GM that is happy to play with the rules that the group seem happy with.

Running the numbers it also doesn't seem like a big problem. If the wizard has 10 int more than the barbarian, and say +3 from being proficient the barbarian will only get a higher result on the skill check than the wizard 16.5% of the time. This is not enough to be common but enough to give the barbarian joy when it does. As the party levels up this will only get more significant (with int 8 on a barbarian and 20 int on the wizard with proficiency of +6 I make it a 7% chance for the barbarian to roll higher).

[Spellbreaker26]

All these problems and differences of opinions and differing solutions. If only the game designers, whose job it was to design the game, actually designed the game instead of everyone having to do it themselves and relearn how to play the game depending on who the DM is.

5e is flexible enough that it can be changed slightly and still hold up; so long as the DM makes such changes clear before the start of the campaign. I'm pretty sure making a more malleable rule system was a choice of the designers.


Then you are likely playing the wrong system. D&D at its core is about adventurers who explore sites and fight monsters. Just because misguided people have been trying to warp the game into something it's not for decades (let's do a political mystery campaign! Barf..) doesn't mean they're justified. There are systems designed to tell the stories of people who are not adventurers but D&D 5e is not one of them.

That is an utterly, totally, completely backwards way of thinking.

First of all, any given elf PC will usually be a couple of centuries old, or at the very least eighty. Anyone with the sage background starts with a letter from a colleague so they've been sages long enough to have a colleague starting at level one. An acolyte will have likely grown up in a church, perhaps in an orphanage.

If you start the campaign at levels 1-3, then the characters will have just started out on their career and therefore their background has been their entire life up to now. They have just started out being adventurers likely because of a reason in their backgrounds.

The PCs are emphatically NOT just a bunch of mercenaries, or at least they weren't before the start of the campaign. When they go to sites and fight monsters it is likely that one of them will have at least a slight personal investment in the proceedings, or at least any DM worth his salt will try and encourage such. When they do other things because DnD has provisions for activities other than combat they can do that as well.

It's fine to want a campaign that's just dungeoneering, but saying that DnD doesn't allow for "political mystery campaigns" or whatever smacks of badwrongfun. You might not enjoy them, but the game makes allowances for such occurrences and saying that people who want to do something a bit more ambitious should go away and play a different system is just plain wrong.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Also, tailor their response back to the character itself. The barbarian's interaction with arcane arts is going to be markedly different from the wizard.

Barbarian: "Reaching out to the orb, you feel the hairs on the back of your neck stick up. You brace yourself for a zap, but yank your hand away."
Wizard: "When wielded, this orb allowed the Sorcerer-King to electrocute those who dared touch his deified form."

Or:

Barbarian: (roll 16 + 0 = 16 : success!) "Everything fits, this must be that orb the adventurer with a whip and fedora was spinning a yarn about, the one the Sorcerer-King used to fry his subjects if they displeased him. You make a hand puppet out of an old sock, name it Herbert the Dragon and let it lift the orb in its powerful woolly jaws."

Wizard: (roll 8 + 2 + 3 = 13 : failure!) "Yup, that sure is a glowy sphere thing. Some kind of... energy? Energy power... ball? Look, maybe this is just one of the infinite number of pieces of mystical knowledge you weren't absorbing as you were busy learning how to cast actual spells."


So no, I can't agree that proficiency is supposed to merely represent an adventurer who knows a little bit more than other adventurers on a specific topic. Such an assumption excludes too many of the possible stories from D&D.

I think any system like D&D is going to exclude some "stories", the question is whether they're the wrong ones. If your backstory is, "I am an elf many hundreds of years old, I spent all that time reading books of lore, I remember every page, no one else could hold a candle to me when it comes to knowing stuff, it would be preposterous", then as I put it in another thread that's a bid for informal power that's going to run into problems with the mechanics. But the same is true if you write, "My character is a master swordsman, peerless in fencing, and most often swiftly disposes of enemies in a single deadly stroke."

In some systems you could write "peerless swordsman" on your character sheet and that would be a done deal, something that defines you and that you just get to do. Or you could write "forensics expert" or "arcane lore" and then you'd be allowed, encouraged and expected to use those traits to describe how you overcome adversity. But D&D clearly is a very different system from those.

At the same time you have some wriggle room to accommodate certain "stories" if the table agrees to it. For instance, it could be understood that every clever idea around the table or success at a knowledge skill should be represented as coming from the Int 18 character because that's their thing. A player just doesn't get to declare willy-nilly that because of their story it doesn't make sense for any of the other characters to exercise their nominal abilities in their supposed field of expertise. Working as intended.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The first rule of 5e skills is "use them as little as possible." They do not deliver anywhere near the consistency a good skill system demands. Remember the advice about only rolling if failure is interesting, and implement it whenever possible. Weird magic thing you want the players to know for atmosphere? Just tell the Wizard.

The best non-houserule-y solution is to gate things by Proficiency. Instead of saying "it's an Arcana check," say "anyone with Arcana can make a check." It's DM fiat-y, but it's a pretty fair way of doing it.

The best houserule solution is to give everyone Expertise in all their skills. Expertise results in pretty decent success rates that grow meaningfully with level. The actual class feature "Expertise" can be replaced with custom abilities, or altered to mean something like "you can reroll selected checks 1/Short Rest" or "if you roll less than an 8, round up," or what have you.

My preferred method is to use all three.

[Tanarii]

The best non-houserule-y solution is to gate things by Proficiency. Instead of saying "it's an Arcana check," say "anyone with Arcana can make a check." It's DM fiat-y, but it's a pretty fair way of doing it.Nope. It's a completely garbage house rule that arbitrarily denies player's their fair mechanical capabilities. It's like taking every complaint made about 5e being mother-may-I and the skill system being DM fiat, then flipping a switch to make the worst possible version of those.

The only fair version of this house rule is flat out telling players before the game begins that the only checks that will be allowed, across the board, is proficient only skill checks. There will be no non-proficient ability checks of any kind. Otherwise, it's no 'DM fiat with reasonable advice on meaningful failure being required for a check and setting a DC within a specific range', it's 'DM fiat on if they don't like that you're rolling a check because reasons'. There is a massive difference between the two, and proficient only checks when the DM feels like it falls squarely in the latter category. It crosses the line from DM flexibility to arbitrarily hurting players.


The best houserule solution is to give everyone Expertise in all their skills. Expertise results in pretty decent success rates that grow meaningfully with level. The actual class feature "Expertise" can be replaced with custom abilities, or altered to mean something like "you can reroll selected checks 1/Short Rest" or "if you roll less than an 8, round up," or what have you.An explicit house rule, made before character creation, that defines a change to the bonuses, is entirely reasonable. In other words remaking the skill system, either to be more pre-defined DCs for his table, or to change the ability score vs proficiency bonus weighting, is good. DM variability breaking the skill system is horrendously bad.


Amazingly, it's this stupid recommendation that's finally making me understand where the people like Pex complaining about the 5e being mother-may-I and DM whim are coming from. No wonder if DMs are doing silly things like denying checks based on needing a proficiency bonus to make a check. If DMs are breaking the system that badly on a whim, and mistakenly think the rules allow that and it doesn't break the system and its not only okay but actually a good thing, maybe some tighter rules really are needed for the skill system in the next edition.

[MrStabby]

Amazingly, it's this stupid recommendation that's finally making me understand where the people like Pex complaining about the 5e being mother-may-I and DM whim are coming from. No wonder if DMs are doing silly things like denying checks based on needing a proficiency bonus to make a check. If DMs are breaking the system that badly on a whim, and mistakenly think the rules allow that and it doesn't break the system and its not only okay but actually a good thing, maybe some tighter rules really are needed for the skill system in the next edition.

I pretty much agree with everything apart from the quoted bit.

You can't complain that the rules don't work well on the basis of people choosing not to play by them. If DMs are denying players their ability to make a check that isn't the fault of a system that allows players to make a check. That's on the DM. Tightening rules or being more explicit is fine, but it wont fix the problems people have when they don't play by those rules but instead make up house rules mid game to screw with non proficient players.

[JellyPooga]

Nope. It's a completely garbage house rule that arbitrarily denies player's their fair mechanical capabilities.

Eh, it's no worse than simply setting DC's higher for checks you only want certain players to be able to make.

As I mentioned in my previous post, someone without a 12+ Ability Score, Proficiency or outside help from something that explicitly gives a bonus simply cannot succeed at any check with a DC higher than 20. The difference between "only those proficient" and "only if you can make a DC:21+ check" is...small. Small enough to be negligible if you're experiencing a high frequency of what should be unusual circumstances (such as the Barbarian frequently "beating the odds" and passing "average" Arcana checks that the Wizard is not).

I still think the solution to most scenarios where the proficient/non-proficient divide is not being noticed enough comes down to the GM not setting appropriate DC's. Any DC of 20 or below is "common knowledge" (in the case of Lore skills) or "anyone can attempt it" (for more physical things). The name of some obscure wizards tower that's been uninhabited for a thousand years is not "common knowledge"...the DC should be above 20. The Barbarian from a far away land and with a memory like a sieve anyway simply cannot know this thing. Likewise, not everyone can attempt to lift your average castle portcullis; not even two people together should even have a chance. This is the realm of truly heroic strength, so the DC (you guessed it) should be above 20 (well above in my opinion). Only the very strong or well trained can even attempt such a feat.

As for those "common knowledge/task" scenarios...well, they're "common". Average people are supposed to be able to do that sort of thing and those who are proficient do have a better chance. You can't really complain that the Barbarian might know a bunch of common stuff when the Wizard doesn't, because there's definitely a few things the Wizard can know that the Barbarian absolutely cannot.

[Tanarii]

I pretty much agree with everything apart from the quoted bit.

You can't complain that the rules don't work well on the basis of people choosing not to play by them. If DMs are denying players their ability to make a check that isn't the fault of a system that allows players to make a check. That's on the DM. Tightening rules or being more explicit is fine, but it wont fix the problems people have when they don't play by those rules but instead make up house rules mid game to screw with non proficient players.Okay that's a fair point.

I see two issues here:
1) Proficiency only checks are being presented as a good solution to a perceived problem. It's not. Note I'm not saying the perceived problem doesn't exist. If you perceive it as a problem, at least present a good solution.
2) Proficiency only checks are being presented as not a house-rule. They are.


Eh, it's no worse than simply setting DC's higher for checks you only want certain players to be able to make.Yes it is. Because this rule means that at first level, the Int 16 non-proficient EK/AT can't make an Arcana check while the Int 10 proficient Warlock can, despite having a higher total bonus to the check. There's no justification for that other than a preconception that 'proficient = extensively trained at a college level' and 'non-proficient = doesn't know anything about it' that isn't backed up by the rules.

[Ruslan]

Amazingly, it's this stupid recommendation that's finally making me understand where the people like Pex complaining about the 5e being mother-may-I and DM whim are coming from. No wonder if DMs are doing silly things like denying checks based on needing a proficiency bonus to make a check. If DMs are breaking the system that badly on a whim, and mistakenly think the rules allow that and it doesn't break the system and its not only okay but actually a good thing, maybe some tighter rules really are needed for the skill system in the next edition.
But ... very tight, clear and concise rules already exist! They go like this:

1. Player describes what he's trying to attempt
2. DM sets DC (Very Easy = 5 or autosuccess, Easy = 10, Moderate = 15, etc)
3. Player rolls vs. DC

That's it. Three easy steps. Contrary to Pex's assertion, there's no need to "relearn" the game - unless the DM forces you to, by refusing to follow this simple system and inserting arbitrary changes in the name of faux realism.

[JellyPooga]

Yes it is. Because this rule means that at first level, the Int 16 non-proficient EK/AT can't make an Arcana check while the Int 10 proficient Warlock can, despite having a higher total bonus to the check. There's no justification for that other than a preconception that 'proficient = extensively trained at a college level' and 'non-proficient = doesn't know anything about it' that isn't backed up by the rules.

I take the point, but I don't think the Grods intention was "all" Arcana checks are "trained only", only "some" and I can see a valid justification for saying that, although smarter, the Int 16 EK/AT simply hasn't had the training to know certain things, that the Int 10 Warlock has. Like, for instance, I'm pretty sure I'm more than smart enough to learn how to fix a car, but that doesn't mean I could neccesarily tell you how a gear-box works, because I haven't been trained as a mechanic. It's not backed up by the RAW, no, but there's a certain sense to it.

[Ruslan]

I take the point, but I don't think the Grods intention was "all" Arcana checks are "trained only", only "some" and I can see a valid justification for saying that, although smarter, the Int 16 EK/AT simply hasn't had the training to know certain things
Once again, I would point to the "Trained Only" rule from 3.5e, and say I have no problem porting it into 5E, with respect to skills like Arcana, Religion, History, etc. Of course, this should be properly communicated during character creation, and not dumped on the players mid-campaign.

[Tanarii]

I take the point, but I don't think the Grods intention was "all" Arcana checks are "trained only", only "some" and I can see a valid justification for saying that, although smarter, the Int 16 EK/AT simply hasn't had the training to know certain things, that the Int 10 Warlock has. Like, for instance, I'm pretty sure I'm more than smart enough to learn how to fix a car, but that doesn't mean I could neccesarily tell you how a gear-box works, because I haven't been trained as a mechanic. It's not backed up by the RAW, no, but there's a certain sense to it.There is, but we're not talking about trained mechanics vs whatever your specialty is IRL. We're talking about trained adventurers. They're trained in adventure-y things. They can all do those things insofar as they rely on an ability check to do them.

There may be the occasional situation in which only specific characters can make a check, based on background, for a non-adventure-y task. But the examples commonly given (breaking down a door, identifying something with Arcana) clearly fall under adventure-y tasks, and that's flat out robbing your player of something he's supposed to be able to do. (Unless the player wants to declare his character can't do it, that's his prerogative obviously.)

But even then, using proficiency or a lack thereof isn't an appropriate way to do it, because proficient does NOT mean "trained" in 5e. It indicates something you have a focus on and get a bonus to. That's it. No source is specified. It may just be something you have a special knack for compared to the other things that ability score can do. ie an Int 8 character with Investigation may have absolutely no formal training in reasoning, he might just have a natural knack for it compared to recalling facts. Now take an Int 16 character. He's better at figuring things out (at low level) and better at recalling things. There's no justification the one should get to make a check and the other doesn't. It requires a certain preconception about what 'proficient' means that the rules don't require.

(Edit: Also I like a lot of Grod's suggestions on how he wants to fix what he perceives as problems in the skill system. His mechanical changes, while not to my taste, are often sound recommendations.)


Once again, I would point to the "Trained Only" rule from 3.5e, and say I have no problem porting it into 5E, with respect to skills like Arcana, Religion, History, etc. Of course, this should be properly communicated during character creation, and not dumped on the players mid-campaign.Yeah, I probably wouldn't object so hard if it was presented before hand as something that was going to happen regularly, and which sub-set of skills it applied to, and if I was allowed to declare that my character in fact wasn't trained even though he had proficiency, or was trained even though he didn't have proficiency.

There's no reason my Int 10 Cleric with History proficiency must be formally trained in History, he might just have paid attention to legends a bit more than other things like Religion or Nature. And there's no reason why my Int 16 EK must not be formally trained in Arcana, History, Nature, Religion, Investigation, and just generally using his mind just because he doesn't have a single one of those proficiency.

[Ziegander]

Allowing a Wizard to pick up a maul and attack with it, and hit ACs higher than 10 with it, and deal damage with it is not a false dichotomy to ruling that a Barbarian can't make an Arcana check against DC 15 and succeed because he's not proficient. Rolling an attack and making a skill check work fundamentally the same way.

You don't suffer disadvantage on your attack roll when attacking with a weapon for which you are not proficient.
You don't suffer disadvantage on your ability check when making an ability check in a skill for which you are not proficient.

Wait. Let me say that again for the people in the back.

YOU DON'T SUFFER DISADVANTAGE ON YOUR ATTACK ROLL WHEN ATTACKING WITH A WEAPON FOR WHICH YOU ARE NOT PROFICIENT!

That would be a house rule. Check page 146 of your 5th edition Player's Handbook. The rule is, I quote, "If you make an attack roll using a weapon with which you lack proficiency, you do not add your proficiency bonus to the attack roll."

So if you don't allow Barbarians to make Arcana checks when they're not proficient, then you might as well go ahead and slide down that slippery slope and tell Wizards they aren't allowed to make attack rolls with weapons they aren't proficient with.

[Joe the Rat]

On attributes and skills proficiencies

Investment in resources should matter. Devoting one of your 4-8 starting skill proficiencies in something means you are specialized or focused on that point, and will continue to grow in ability as you advance. And this isn't necessarily training - you may simply have a natural knack or inborn racial ability for that sort of thing.
Devoting a large chunk of your point-buy (or one of your good rolls, you gambling heathen) to the attribute means you want to be good at everything the attribute covers, and will accept that this only improves if you wish to spend ASIs to grow it. This isn't necessarily inborn traits - High Intelligence can mean you are really well versed in a wide range of topics. High strength probably has a lot more to do with conditioning than being born the biggest and strongest.
These are both character investments. Two people with +5 Intelligence (Arcana) are equally well versed in esoteric magical BS. The one with more from Int is also more versed in religious BS, historical BS, and crossword puzzles. The one with more in proficiency may know less in other areas, but will get better in Arcana with no further investment beyond leveling up... and is probably comparatively stronger in other abilities (which Int-master didn't have points for).

Where I personally deviate from the rules is tool and language proficiencies. This is a place where I tend to rule that you can do only the most basic of tasks - if anything at all - without proficiency. But this is also a place where I don't have players roll unless they are trying something exceptional.

All that said, I'd rather that the proficiency bonus went to 7. the range feels flat.

[Pex]

I pretty much agree with everything apart from the quoted bit.

You can't complain that the rules don't work well on the basis of people choosing not to play by them. If DMs are denying players their ability to make a check that isn't the fault of a system that allows players to make a check. That's on the DM. Tightening rules or being more explicit is fine, but it wont fix the problems people have when they don't play by those rules but instead make up house rules mid game to screw with non proficient players.

It is the fault of the system because the system does not define what constitutes not needing to roll for a skill, what makes a skill easy, what makes it medium, what makes it hard, etc. It certainly provides DC values to assign to the difficulty of a task, but the difficulty of a particular task depends on who is the DM and perhaps his mood that day. One DM says no need to roll. Another DM says do roll but the DC is 10. A third DM says DC is 15 but 10 if proficient. A fourth DM says DC is 10 but proficient characters don't need to roll. A fifth DM says the DC is 15 but only proficient characters may roll. All of these options are the DM using his judgment, which is what the rules say to do. The first DM might call the fifth DM a bad DM, but in reality it's just that DM's own judgment of making a "ruling".


But ... very tight, clear and concise rules already exist! They go like this:

1. Player describes what he's trying to attempt
2. DM sets DC (Very Easy = 5 or autosuccess, Easy = 10, Moderate = 15, etc)
3. Player rolls vs. DC

That's it. Three easy steps. Contrary to Pex's assertion, there's no need to "relearn" the game - unless the DM forces you to, by refusing to follow this simple system and inserting arbitrary changes in the name of faux realism.

What's the DC for climbing a slippery rope? Different DMs will give different DCs. Some DMs will give Disadvantage because I'm wearing armor. Others won't. Some DMs might just make it a higher DC because I'm wearing armor. Therefore my character's ability to climb that rope depends on who is the DM, i.e. relearning the game.

What's the DC for identifying a spell an enemy spellcaster is casting? Some DMs say that's not possible at all, to allow it is a "house rule" and possibly break Counterspell. Other DMs say Knowledge Arcana DC 20. Does the 14 Int Non-Proficient Rogue get to even roll? Do I have Advantage if my character knows the spell? If yes, isn't telling me to roll with Advantage giving away information before I even roll? Does it matter if I'm a cleric trying to identify a warlock spell? My character's ability to identify the spell depends on who the DM is, i.e. relearning the game.

[Kurt Kurageous]

If there are specific reasons a character could not know tidbit X, then a roll should not be made in the first place.

This. If there is no chance of success, there is no roll. That's how I'd adjudicate it.

Or if you want a long shot, just make non-proficient disadvantaged. Makes a roll of a 20 a 1 in 400 event. It's still possible...

If that's too strict, up the difficulty by 5 or 10. reduces chances by -25% to -50%.

if that's too strict, perhaps you don't really see this as a problem needing a solution, I suppose.

[Ruslan]

It is the fault of the system because the system does not define what constitutes not needing to roll for a skill, what makes a skill easy, what makes it medium, what makes it hard, etc. It certainly provides DC values to assign to the difficulty of a task, but the difficulty of a particular task depends on who is the DM and perhaps his mood that day. One DM says no need to roll. Another DM says do roll but the DC is 10. A third DM says DC is 15 but 10 if proficient. A fourth DM says DC is 10 but proficient characters don't need to roll. A fifth DM says the DC is 15 but only proficient characters may roll. All of these options are the DM using his judgment, which is what the rules say to do. The first DM might call the fifth DM a bad DM, but in reality it's just that DM's own judgment of making a "ruling".
Between the first two DMs, it's a legitimate disagreement. The task can be borderline between "easy" and "very easy". There is no way the game designers could define the DC for every potential task. A human DM will have to make decisions. Just because one DM assigns a DC of "very easy" and another "easy" to a certain task, doesn't mean there's need to "relearn" the game, as you asserted.

The third, fourth and fifth DMs blatantly break the rules. Or making a house rule, if you want to call it this way. It doesn't look like your problem is with the system, your problem is with DMs ignoring the system.

[jas61292]

You know, I think it's funny that people try and claim that denying people the opportunity to make a check is contrary to the rules as written, because as far as I can tell, it is not only well within RAW, but arguably encouraged by it. The issue is that people are just framing it wrong.

Don't think of it as denying players the right to make checks, based on proficiency out whatever else. Think of it as allowing checks to certain players based on what their characters are capable of. Because the fact is, with the possible exception of the Hide action in combat, players can never choose to make checks. They decide what their character does, and the DM tells them if they need to make a check, based on their analysis of the situation. By only telling certain players to make a check, you are not denying the other players a right provided by the game. You are simply saying that only those few players have a reasonable chance of success that is worth rolling for. And what determines if something is reasonable is not simply the numbers on their sheet, but also other intangible parts of their character. This is no different than any other external factor that effects a check. Making these kinds of calls is a major part of what i believe a DMs job is.

That said, as has been mentioned by others, sometimes the best way to do things is to just not call for a check at all, and just let the person most likely to succeed do so.

[Tanarii]

You know, I think it's funny that people try and claim that denying people the opportunity to make a check is contrary to the rules as written, because as far as I can tell, it is not only well within RAW, but arguably encouraged by it. The issue is that people are just framing it wrong. Nope. The DMG makes lots of recommendations on when to call for a check, and when not to call for a check. But not once does it every imply, in any way, that you should do it based on if the player has selected the skill or not. It only ever references allowing the player to add their proficiency bonus in that case.

So you can try to claim it's under the tent of DM judgement, an from the perspective of 'the DM can make any judgement he wants on if a check is allowed' it might be. But it's completely out of left field as far as the actual recommendations to the DM in the DMG, which definitely don't recommend the DM should just make any judgement he wants on if a check is allowed.

[Ruslan]

Don't think of it as denying players the right to make checks, based on proficiency out whatever else. Think of it as allowing checks to certain players based on what their characters are capable of.
And later, you tell the party: "the Hill Giant is just too strong for most of you. Only the party Barbarian gets to fight it. The rest should sit this one out. Don't think of it as denying you the right to fight the Hill Giant. Think of it as allowing the fight to certain players based on what their characters are capable of."

Seems legit.

[jas61292]

And later, you tell the party: "the Hill Giant is just too strong for most of you. Only the party Barbarian gets to fight it. The rest should sit this one out. Don't think of it as denying you the right to fight the Hill Giant. Think of it as allowing the fight to certain players based on what their characters are capable of."

Seems legit.

That is a terrible comparison and you know it. Combat is an encounter. Not a single check.

Any encounter should have many ways to overcome it, achievable by all kinds of characters.

A single check is a single check. Some people can do it, others cannot.

Regardless though, the simple fact is that players cannot choose to make checks (with a few specific exceptions). Implying that not allowing a player to make a check is against the rules simply had no basis in fact, because it always is your call, not theirs.

[Ruslan]

jas, Tanarii already responded to you when he mentioned that:


The DMG makes lots of recommendations on when to call for a check, and when not to call for a check. But not once does it every imply, in any way, that you should do it based on if the player has selected the skill or not
So everything you are suggesting is, in fact, a house rule. I was merely satirizing it.

[Tanarii]

So everything you are suggesting is, in fact, a house rule.Technically I was acknowledging that calling it a "house-rule" is too strong a term.

It just flies in the face of what the devs wrote in terms of recommendations as far as how they intended their system be used, in the book for Dungeon Masters. Edit: Or at least requires a very poor interpretations of those recommendations in the broadest possible sense. Because what they weren't saying was "just make up anything you want at any time", and they never implied that you should gate checks based on skill proficiency.

[jas61292]

jas, Tanarii already responded to you when he mentioned that:

So everything you are suggesting is, in fact, a house rule. I was merely satirizing it.

Don't have my DMG on me, but the way he worded what he said implies that, like most of the DMG, these are recommendations, not rules.

The entire point I am making though is that checks are a tool of the DM, not the players. If you ask one player to make a check based on their actions, you are not denying something owed to the other players. You are using a DM tool to potentially allow a player's actions to overcome a challenge, in a circumstance where you believe success and failure are both reasonable outcomes. And like all DM tools, their intent is to be used in such a way that helps the game. If that means only allowing one player to make a check, so be it. If your group wouldn't like that, then allowing everyone to make a check would help your game more. But insisting the latter is the only thing allowed by the rules is straight up false.

[Ruslan]

@Tanarii: Fair enough.


The entire point I am making though is that checks are a tool of the DM, not the players. If you ask one player to make a check based on their actions, you are not denying something owed to the other players.this is nothing but verbal contortionism.

If Telim the Wizard (Arcana +6) and Grog the Barbarian (Arcana -1) both try to figure out what the weird crystal orb does, the difference between their skill levels is already accounted for, because +6 is not the same as -1. Those are two different numbers, and they already account for the fact that Telim knows way more Arcana than Grog.

If the DM goes beyond the difference between +6 and -1, for example, by saying "only Telim may roll", he is assigning an unfair penalty on Grog. You may call it "not denying Grog a check", but you are.

[HidesHisEyes]

Don't have my DMG on me, but the way he worded what he said implies that, like most of the DMG, these are recommendations, not rules.

The entire point I am making though is that checks are a tool of the DM, not the players. If you ask one player to make a check based on their actions, you are not denying something owed to the other players. You are using a DM tool to potentially allow a player's actions to overcome a challenge, in a circumstance where you believe success and failure are both reasonable outcomes. And like all DM tools, their intent is to be used in such a way that helps the game. If that means only allowing one player to make a check, so be it. If your group wouldn't like that, then allowing everyone to make a check would help your game more. But insisting the latter is the only thing allowed by the rules is straight up false.

I think to some extent reading the rules of D&D is and has to be an act of interpretation. It's not chess. The rules are so deep and complex that people won't always agree perfectly on how they should be interpreted.

With that in mind, my own interpretation, the sense I get from the DMG, is definitely that while the DM decides when players make checks, the factors in such decisions are understood to be external to the character. If the task itself comes under the heading "something an adventurer would be able to do but also might fail" then the players get to roll for it.

[Tanarii]

With that in mind, my own interpretation, the sense I get from the DMG, is definitely that while the DM decides when players make checks, the factors in such decisions are understood to be external to the character. If the task itself comes under the heading "something an adventurer would be able to do but also might fail" then the players get to roll for it.That's my understanding too, with the caveat that:
A) Only characters that are interacting with the scene in a way that would allow them to make a roll might get to make a roll. (ie if you're busy doing something else, or can't see an object in question, or can't read a needed language, don't expect to make a check.)
B) Not all checks are going to be "each individual make a roll to succeed, no penalty for failure." Some checks will be group checks, others will have penalties for failure other than "you don't succeed". In fact ...

per the DMG guidelines if there is no consequence for failure, there's generally no reason to call for a check in the first place. Of course, this is questionable in the case of "roll to know something" checks ... DMs calling for those are judging not knowing something is a consequence for failure, instead of just not succeeding. In other words, the only two options they are choosing are "remember" or "not remember", never "remember incorrectly". First of all that's not a particularly interesting check, it's just a random determination of if you know something from your past (edit: as represented mechanically by a combination of ability score modifier and if proficient, proficiency bonus). Second of all, it's one in which having more people attempting to remember is far going to result in almost certain success ... it's a "one success to rule them all" check.

Much more interesting is a group check in which failure means they argued among themselves as to who was right and ended up not being able to agree. As I've said before ... any forum thread shows exactly why that's the most likely thing to happen when a group of people are trying to discuss who is right about something.

Alternately, if they have no time to discuss, have each person check, and use the degrees of failure rule to determine who just failed, and who gets bad info. They each person has to play their character based on what they know, don't know, or know incorrectly.

[dickerson76]

It is mostly arising with the "knowledge" checks such as Arcana, Religion, Nature, and History.

There have been times when someone with an 8 Int and zero proficiency wanted to make a check for obscure lore on stuff, and because they rolled really high, they met the DC, but I didnt want to give them the info, since it didnt make ANY sense that they would know this.

I debated changing the DCs, or giving non-proficient people disadvantage, but I can smell the arguments brewing over both of these.

In such circumstances, I recommend the following: ask the players what the characters' bonuses are and roll behind the screen. Give players the knowledge appropriate with their outcome without the players knowing what the total was. If they score low enough, give them false information. Sometimes we're wrong about the things we "know".

If you want to be clever, make it loosely based on good intel ("farms are safe havens from vampires, because they're afraid of steaks").

The key is give the characters info and their confidence level that they are correct. So maybe a default DC table like this (and then modify the numbers based on how obscure the info is):
0-5: Bad intel and dead sure you're right about it
6-10: Bad intel, but you're not very confident
11-16: Good intel, but you're not very confident
20+: Good intel and dead sure you're right about it

[Ruslan]

You could just go with the simple "if fail by 5 or more, get bad info". Consequences for failure right there.

[Tanarii]

In such circumstances, I recommend the following: ask the players what the characters' bonuses are and roll behind the screen. Give players the knowledge appropriate with their outcome without the players knowing what the total was. If they score low enough, give them false information. Sometimes we're wrong about the things we "know".I prefer group checks or passive checks, as a general rule.

Group checks represent pooled knowledge, or a pooled discussion, with those being wrong dragging the group down. And those being right getting pulling the group up. If a character doesn't think they know anything on the topic or don't want to disrupt delicate negotiations or whatever, they can keep their mouth shut (in character) and not participate in the group check (out of character).

And passive checks are entirely appropriate for a secret knowledge check being made without the player rolling, since that's one of the entire points of passive checks. Note that passive checks also alleviate the concern about Int 8 non-proficient "Barbarians" passing a check while a proficient characters don't. As well as simplifying the "all players make a check and one succeeds" system to something the DM can just glance at, and proceed to give the group info they needed to have anyway.

[Trampaige]

Really surprised more people don't just use passive skills.

16 int, two proficiency: passive arcana of 15. This character simply doesn't have to roll for the information. Sure, someone with 8 int can hit a 15, but they have to roll, and they are not going to upstage the other guy by d20 chance. If it's a DC 10 check, it isn't very hard to begin even with a -1 penalty.

On a dc20 check, guy A has to roll, and guy B can never hit it, so they don't get to roll.

[Ruslan]

Nothing wrong with "DC 15 passive Arcana to know <this>". It's the "Roll DC 15 Arcana to know <this>, and the Barbarian can't roll because I said so" that I have problem with.

[Tanarii]

Really surprised more people don't just use passive skills.

16 int, two proficiency: passive arcana of 15. This character simply doesn't have to roll for the information. Sure, someone with 8 int can hit a 15, but they have to roll, and they are not going to upstage the other guy by d20 chance. If it's a DC 10 check, it isn't very hard to begin even with a -1 penalty.

On a dc20 check, guy A has to roll, and guy B can never hit it, so they don't get to roll.Yep. Passive checks are a built in way to gate checks by total bonus, without all this ridiculous and unintended "proficiency only" crap. Of course, it suffers from much of the same gating problem if overused because that's not the intended use but rather a side effect. The intended use is to speed up the game instead of rolling repeatedly every round, or to avoid giving away that a check was made at all in the case of a secret check.

[DanyBallon]

Nothing wrong with "DC 15 passive Arcana to know <this>". It's the "Roll DC 15 Arcana to know <this>, and the Barbarian can't roll because I said so" that I have problem with.

is there any chance that the barbarian might know the answer? yes, then roll and the DM and player roleplay the results, if no, then there's no reason to allow a skill check to start with. As a DM you have the opportunity and responsability to decide if the roll is open to all or not. If you decide to always open roll to anyone, then you may get more and more low int barbarian finding obscure arcane stuff.

[Ruslan]

is there any chance that the barbarian might know the answer? yes, then roll and the DM and player roleplay the results, if no, then there's no reason to allow a skill check to start with.
Well, passive skill checks are not the same as rolling active skill checks.
Active skill checks: everyone has a chance. Now, let's roll and see!
Passive skill checks: people with X level of skill succeed. People below X level of skill fail.

It's a different paradigm. But both are, in different ways, fair.

"Everyone has a chance ... except the barbarian!" is not fair.

[Tanarii]

is there any chance that the barbarian might know the answer? yes, then roll and the DM and player roleplay the results, if no, then there's no reason to allow a skill check to start with.Does that apply equally to the Warlock not proficient in Arcnana? How about the EK not proficient in Arcana? How about the Rogue Sage who is proficient in Arcana?

Edit: One good thing coming out of this thread ... I'm inspired to make a Barbarian with the Sage background to play some time. :smallbiggrin:

[Vogonjeltz]

As the title says, I have an issue starting to arise with the way 5e handles skill checks.

There is very little difference between a proficient character and a non-proficient character making a skill check if they have similar ability scores, atleast until high levels when the Prof Bonus begins to grow, or if Expertise is gained somehow.

What I am looking for is someway to handle situations where a person with skill proficiency actuallys feels better at something as opposed to someone with a somewhat high stat and gets lucky with the d20 roll.

Any ideas?

At even the lowest levels proficiency in a skill gives 10% more success than nonproficiency for ability checks that use the skill.

Another way to look at it, is that Proficiency, at even the lowest level, can enable success where it was simply not possible without it.

i.e. Str 16, non-proficient can never succeed at a Very Hard athletics check, ever. A proficient character could.
The nonproficient character could also fail at a very easy task, whereas the proficient character would never fail.


It is mostly arising with the "knowledge" checks such as Arcana, Religion, Nature, and History.

There have been times when someone with an 8 Int and zero proficiency wanted to make a check for obscure lore on stuff, and because they rolled really high, they met the DC, but I didnt want to give them the info, since it didnt make ANY sense that they would know this.

I debated changing the DCs, or giving non-proficient people disadvantage, but I can smell the arguments brewing over both of these.

Aha, the problem is that you're not doing ability checks right.

You don't even have a check if you decide that the outcome is impossible and there's no chance of success. A DC is only assigned if there's a chance of success, but the outcome is in doubt.


Blorgh the 8 INT half Orc barbarian is not supposed to be able to tell the origin of mysterious building X in the middle of nowhere, blorgh barely knows the names of surrounding settlements while Ervin the wizard scholar with 18 INT and prof in history probably would know.

Knowledge comes from a variety of sources, who is to say Blorgh didn't hear tales of the mysterious building X from merchants, or tales of myth and legend in his youth?

Being trained in a particular subject doesn't mean you know everything, nor does being untrained mean you know nothing, and there's no particular reason to think an untrained person couldn't know obscure knowledge about any given subject.


No, we're saying that the person who put resources into a topic on a character sheet gets to have a go and the person who didn't didn't. After all, if we do it your way then even that 6 INT Barbarian could have a go as well.

That Intelligence will be important for saving throws and straight out ability checks (which should be used more). But if he didn't pick up any history he's going to have no chance. Either proficiency represents training and not having it means there's a huge gulf or it represents mere familiarity in which case the person who has it has no familiarity at all, and has even less of an excuse to have a go.

In your system, History, Arcana and Religion proficiency are completely useless compared to six characters having a go because with sheer numbers they've got a great chance. My system means characters have to work to maximize their chances and places more weight on individuals and their differences.

I'd take the Intelligence ability score being slightly worse and the knowledge proficiencies actually being worth a darn than intelligence being great and those proficiencies being hogwash.

First off, it's not his system, it is The system.

Secondly, the only benefit for picking proficiency in History is the proficiency bonus. Being 10-30% better at one thing is literally its own reward.

Third, Yes, assuming the 6 characters are capable of achieving the designated DC for the Intelligence (History) check, (it would have to be below DC 18 for someone with Int 16 and no proficiency to potentially pass) then there's a good chance at least one member of the party will know the answer. And that's entirely normal.

For those without any training (proficiency) and no aptitude (mid-low ability scores), the Hard and Very Hard tasks are never going to happen.


If you're running in to problems with all your players making checks on something being too high odds of success, that's because you're calling for checks inappropriately. If everyone can make a check to remember something and there's no penalty for failure, there absolutely should be a almost certain chance of success. "one success to rule them all" checks should just be automatic success most of the time. Meaningful checks are failures have consequences checks: group checks because the worse people drag down the better, bad things happening to individuals that fail checks (consequences for failure on an individual level), or failing to help penalizing checks (disadvantage instead of advantage).

Pretty much exactly this. And failure of such checks (by 5 or more) might not just be saying they don't know, but giving them possibly false information. Since the players see the rolls on the table, they can try and figure out amongst themselves which information to trust, and which is probably suspect.

i.e. Alice, Bob, Chris, and Diane encounter a Halfling claiming to be the Crown Prince of Diptheria, so the players all roll to see if one of them remembers any details about the Crown Prince of Diptheria; Alice gets a 4, Bob a 13, Chris a 9, and Diane an 11;

The DC was 10, so the DM tells Alice, who failed by more than 5, misleading information that she recalls it being something like Edgar or Edward, definitely some kind of E name; Chris failed only by a little bit and so knows they can't recall the right information; Diane passes and remembers the first name was Garrett, and Bob remembers that he was a Dwarf, and therefore the Halfling must be lying.


I pretty much agree with everything apart from the quoted bit.

You can't complain that the rules don't work well on the basis of people choosing not to play by them. If DMs are denying players their ability to make a check that isn't the fault of a system that allows players to make a check. That's on the DM. Tightening rules or being more explicit is fine, but it wont fix the problems people have when they don't play by those rules but instead make up house rules mid game to screw with non proficient players.

I agree with your sentiment (which is to say, I agree with Tanarii's post except for the last bit, for the same reasons).

[pwykersotz]

If I feel the knowledge is specific, I require proficiency, or a background reason.

"I tie his hands" anyone can try.
"I tie his hands and feet using constructive slip knots that get tighter the more you struggle" do you have proficiency in knots? Do you have, say, a sailor background or a hunter background (tying snares)? Do you have class levels in Weaver or racial studies? Then no.

This way anyone can try the simple stuff. The hard stuff, you can try if you are proficient or your race/class/background logically leads to the possibility of it being 'simple for you' .

I agree with this. The more specialized the check, the greater possibility of gatekeeping the check. But overall I use the gatekeeping sparingly. Heck, my players restrict themselves more than I do it. I had one player refuse to make an Arcana check because they "didn't care about all this magic stuff" and felt it was better left to those wussy wizards.

[DanyBallon]

Well, passive skill checks are not the same as rolling active skill checks.
Active skill checks: everyone has a chance. Now, let's roll and see!
Passive skill checks: people with X level of skill succeed. People below X level of skill fail.

It's a different paradigm. But both are, in different ways, fair.

"Everyone has a chance ... except the barbarian!" is not fair.

It's not about passive or active check, it's about, is there a chance of success or failure. That's the first question a DM needs to ask himself before asking for a skill check. If the answer is no then you just don't roll, either they automatically fail, or automatically succeed.


Does that apply equally to the Warlock not proficient in Arcnana? How about the EK not proficient in Arcana? How about the Rogue Sage who is proficient in Arcana?

It applies to everyone, if the DM and player have a plausible reason that the character might succeed, even if only with minimal chances, then let them roll. i.e. Barb heard a legend about that particular topic. He may be right, or may be wrong (this is what the dice will decide). This can apply to more "physical" skill checks, i.e. I'm definately not proficient in climbing, but still once in a while, when not under pressure, I may be able to climb over that wall, but I won't even bother if I'm short on time or being yelled at.

Edit: As a clarification, I'm just trying to show that by using the rules as written the skill system is solid, but only if you keep in mind that 5e assume that you don't need to roll for everything. Coming from 3.X era, I know that it's quite hard to change that paradigm, because in that edition, there was a rule for anything, and a skill check table for almost any situation. 5e is intend to play faster and roll only when it really matters. Having more skill check is not a bad way to play, but it have the downside that within 5e Bound Accuracy, non-proficient character still have decent chances of success. So the more you roll, the more chance a non-proficient character beat the proficient one.

[JackPhoenix]

Edit: One good thing coming out of this thread ... I'm inspired to make a Barbarian with the Sage background to play some time. :smallbiggrin:

You mean Conan the Librarian (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZHoHaAYHq8)? Will you use Strength for Arcana, History, Religion and Nature because you're strong enough to carry a lot of books with you?

[Pex]

Some people say only roll if there's a chance of failure/success; otherwise it's autofail/success. Different DMs have different opinions on when such a thing exists. One DM says no roll needed/can happen, another DM says a roll is needed.

Other people say anyone can roll whenever. Even the barbarian can roll Arcana, possibly reflecting some legend he heard once from the tribe's skald. Some would argue that gives the party Super Advantage since with 5 people rolling chances are someone will roll very high so why bother rolling in the first place?

Given there is going to be a roll of some kind, what's the DC? It depends on who is the DM and maybe his mood that day. It's easy, DC 10. No, it's hard, DC 20.

It's this inherent inconsistency that's the problem. That's relearning how to play the game. That's not knowing what my character can do.

[Ruslan]

Your character can tell the DM "I try to recall any lore or legend about <whatever>. Do I remember anything?". That is literally not dependant on the DM whatsoever. There is no relearning.

If DM Bob tells you "roll vs DC 10" and DM Joe tells you "roll vs DC 15", you are not relearning to play the game. Nor are you "not aware of what your character can do'. You character can scratch his head and either remember a piece of lore or not. Don't overdramatize this.

[Mongobear]

I think his issue is that unlike previous edition, what might be a DC10 check in one table, might be DC15 or 20 in another. There is no chapter on getting greater depths into Skills or how to better judge setting DCs, all we get is "These things work with X Skill, the normal DC ranges are from 5 to 30, have fun!"

I actually liked 3.X for having an entire chapter for fleshing out skills, giving full examples of different DC ranges and modifiers. I just wish WotC wasnt so seemingly lazy with that part of 5e and made it a lot less vague.

[PloxBox]

One thing I would do is possibly restrict PC's rolling by proficiency or not if its something more than general adventuring knowledge. Could also depend on backgrounds/backstory. Why would an Urchin from an island village know about the anatomy of a creature from the Underdark?

That being said, something that could also be done is limit the knowledge you give to a non-proficient character. Using the above example: Party comes across a strange corpse while travelling in the Underdark. Two characters want to roll a check to see what it is. The Urchin, who isn't proficient in Nature/Arcana, gets an 18 on the check while the Sage, who is proficient in Nature/Arcana, rolls low with an 8.

I'd rule that, for the Sage, the body is a bit too mangled for him to properly identify as all he might have only ever talked about what Underdark creatures could do and the other dangers present, rather than what they looked like. On the other hand, the Urchin once remembered a tale from one of the village's elder talk about "Horrid, purple faced monstrosities that devour your minds!"

From that, the Urchin knows enough to be cautious going forward, but doesn't know that its a Mind Flayer by name.

[djreynolds]

On 13 January 3019 the Fellowship of the Ring entered Moria through the Doors, but initially Gandalf could not find out the password to open them. Merry Brandybuck unknowingly gave Gandalf the answer by asking, "What does it mean by speak, friend, and enter?" When Gandalf realized that the correct translation was "Say friend and enter" he sprang up, laughed, and said "Mellon", which means "friend" in Sindarin, and the Doors opened.

I know this doesn't help the debate... but sometimes it takes a simple person to see the simple solution.

If a barbarian makes an arcana or history check.... pat him on the back and buy him a mug of ale.

I see all the classes first as adventurers, and every character picks up stuff and IMO that's why they have a chance to succeed, same as 20th level mage scoring a critical hit.

[Pex]

Your character can tell the DM "I try to recall any lore or legend about <whatever>. Do I remember anything?". That is literally not dependant on the DM whatsoever. There is no relearning.

If DM Bob tells you "roll vs DC 10" and DM Joe tells you "roll vs DC 15", you are not relearning to play the game. Nor are you "not aware of what your character can do'. You character can scratch his head and either remember a piece of lore or not. Don't overdramatize this.

Yes, I'm relearning. In Bob's game I can know legends easily. If I then join Joe's game suddenly I'm not so knowledgeable about legends, and I haven't even made a character yet. I can dump Intelligence and have no proficiency yet still know legends 50% of the time in Bob's game. In Joe's game it's suddenly 20%. It's a different game of playing 5E. I haven't done anything and already my character is more ignorant.

[Mongobear]

On 13 January 3019 the Fellowship of the Ring entered Moria through the Doors, but initially Gandalf could not find out the password to open them. Merry Brandybuck unknowingly gave Gandalf the answer by asking, "What does it mean by speak, friend, and enter?" When Gandalf realized that the correct translation was "Say friend and enter" he sprang up, laughed, and said "Mellon", which means "friend" in Sindarin, and the Doors opened.

I know this doesn't help the debate... but sometimes it takes a simple person to see the simple solution.

If a barbarian makes an arcana or history check.... pat him on the back and buy him a mug of ale.

I see all the classes first as adventurers, and every character picks up stuff and IMO that's why they have a chance to succeed, same as 20th level mage scoring a critical hit.

To be fair, that isn't Merry rolling a Nat 20 and knowing the answer, in D&D terms, I would say Merry Aided Gandalf's check, giving him advantage or at the very least did something to allow him to reroll and get a high result as opposed to the 4 he rolled the first time.

If that part of the book would have had Merry instead look at the message then yell out "IT MEANS SAY THE ELVISH WORLD FOR FRIEND, YOU OLD BUFFOON!!" without them sitting there for several hours thinking, then it would be more fitting of an "oaf" knowing stuff WAY out of their repertoire.

[djreynolds]

To be fair, that isn't Merry rolling a Nat 20 and knowing the answer, in D&D terms, I would say Merry Aided Gandalf's check, giving him advantage or at the very least did something to allow him to reroll and get a high result as opposed to the 4 he rolled the first time.

If that part of the book would have had Merry instead look at the message then yell out "IT MEANS SAY THE ELVISH WORLD FOR FRIEND, YOU OLD BUFFOON!!" without them sitting there for several hours thinking, then it would be more fitting of an "oaf" knowing stuff WAY out of their repertoire.

You are right, it is 5E's glaring issue... the skills

I just try to provide a positive twist, a barbarian sees a wizard cast a fireball for the 1st time... is WOW.

But by the 10th time, the barbarian knows what's going to happen.

My issue is that, aside from the skilled feat or multiclassing, that barbarian doesn't show growth of having spent 5 levels with a wizard

My other issue is, a wizard with a 20 in intelligence has the same proficiency as a rogue does with an 8 intelligence and expertise in arcana, let say or history

I just try to provide a positive twist or plausible explanation so the story can progress

If there is an issue at your table I suggest, if you have no proficiency you can roll with disadvantage... but they may still succeed

I try to take dice rolls out of things, unless they are pivotal to the story or there is real danger on failure.

[DanyBallon]

I actually liked 3.X for having an entire chapter for fleshing out skills, giving full examples of different DC ranges and modifiers. I just wish WotC wasnt so seemingly lazy with that part of 5e and made it a lot less vague.

That's precisely what I hate from 3.X, as around too many gaming tables, it would mean that if it's not written down in the PHB, you couldn't do it. 5e brought back the flexibility that OD&D and AD&D had.


It's this inherent inconsistency that's the problem. That's relearning how to play the game. That's not knowing what my character can do.

I've seen you make this comment before, but I fail to see how you need to relearn the game when changing DM.

Whatherver the DM, the rules are exactly the same, you roll a d20 for your skill checks. The only thing that differs is the interpretation of the result on the die. A DM that ask for roll on everything, or a DM that have set DC for skill checks that he share with its players, or a DM that set DC on the fly are just having different playstyle using the same set of rules. You don't need to relearn the game when switching from one gamestyle to the other, you just need to adjust your gameplay.

It is the same as if you play with a DM that favors roleplay, and give up more experience and inspiration points for doing so, VS a DM that favors combat and gives you bonus experience and influence for critting a creature or defeating solo the boss monster. Both are equally valid gamestyle and rely on the DM, yet still uses the same rules. If you don't like one, then just don't play it, do not blame the game because you don't like a particular gamestyle.

Remember that before joining a game, you can always ask the DM how he run his game, and then decide if it suits you or not.

Lastly, the most important thing to keep in mind is that D&D is a cooperative game where the DM and players are building a storyline together. They should talk to each other in order to create the best conditions to achieve that goal. If a player or a DM isn't willing to cooperate toward that goal, then, maybe, they are not playing the best game for them.

[Corsair14]

Skipping everything in the middle of the thread, it comes down to you are the DM, you determine, regardless of their rolls, whether they succeed or pass skill checks and what they find out from those rolls. Period. Dot. Even if the int 8 barbarian rolls a nat 20 on an arcana check, you still determine what he knows if anything about said item. It really is that simple. The DM interprets the rules and determines what rules he is following. Rules lawyers have zero voice at the table since the rules themselves are arbitrary. You are not in a competitive tournament environment, they are in your world where you determine how things work.

Now you can word it how you please, (example) "oh you rolled a nat 20 on figuring out about this ring, you are pretty positive the stone is a pearl and it looks well made and set in bright gold. You know pearls have something to do with the water." Whether said ring has anything to do with the water is a moot point, that's all that character would know about the ring by examining it.

Or you could go, "Nat 20, looks like a well made gold and pearl ring and remember hearing pearls come from the water." Either way, he isn't figuring out what the ring does regardless of what he rolls if it doesn't make sense to the story or character.

Again, regardless of rules, you are the DM, its your world, you make the calls not the PCs.

[Gignere]

Does this really happen in other tables? This sounds like all semantics at our table we self gate we don't even need the DM to tell us not make a check. Boulder in the way, barbarian do your athletics, while my character would just watch on the sidelines. It would never even cross my mind to say my 8 strength wizard will try to move the boulder. Same thing we found a glowing magic thingamajig, the barbarian player will never say let me study it, experiment with it, scan it with detect magic.

This just seems so bassackwards to me to have everyone fighting to roll for a check when it is at many times quite obvious to decide who should roll as long as players are just keeping in character.

[Tanarii]

I think his issue is that unlike previous edition, what might be a DC10 check in one table, might be DC15 or 20 in another. There is no chapter on getting greater depths into Skills or how to better judge setting DCs, all we get is "These things work with X Skill, the normal DC ranges are from 5 to 30, have fun!"

I actually liked 3.X for having an entire chapter for fleshing out skills, giving full examples of different DC ranges and modifiers. I just wish WotC wasnt so seemingly lazy with that part of 5e and made it a lot less vague.
It's not lazy. It's not a bug. It's a feature.

It's intentionally vague, and it's intentional it will vary from table to table. That's because it gives DMs flexibility to set DCs that make sense for both the type of game they want to run, and the fact that not all situations are the same. In other words, not every natural cliff has an inherent DC 15*, not every iron door is DC 20 bust open, and not every 15ft jump is DC 15*. In other words, the assumption is there IS no inherent baseline DC you can set, because just like our reality, there is no such thing as a baseline 'natural cliff', 'iron door', or 'X distance jump'. There is too much variability in handholds, door construction, or landing surface for there to be any such thing.

The other upside is it speeds up play. Provided players don't argue every DM judgement call, of course.

The downside to that is there is table variation, and also (potentially) there is in-game inconsistency. The game tries to reduce that by telling DMs to only make checks if there are meaningful consequences for failure, and to set most DCs to 10, 15 or 20. As a player, I find that to be generally sufficient info to decide what actions to take, because I can calculate my chances of success for those. I may have to adjust slightly if a DM has a tendency to roll checks all the time and regularly use higher DCs, but that's an adjustment I can make pretty rapidly.

But I understand players that say that's insufficient info / consistency for them in a game.

I'm not sure how those players deal with real life where they can't see any probability of success before they try to do things tho. :smallyuk:

(*I know 5e doesn't require a climb checks and jump checks for basic climbing/jumping, but I'm trying to use simple examples that can be extrapolated to the skill set as a whole.)

[Armored Walrus]

Nope, just nope....

Blorgh the 8 INT half Orc barbarian is not supposed to be able to tell the origin of mysterious building X in the middle of nowhere, blorgh barely knows the names of surrounding settlements while Ervin the wizard scholar with 18 INT and prof in history probably would know.

At least for me as both DM and player things like that completely breaks immersion. Some skills are for everyone trained or no but lore and advanced crafting stuff that you learn through study should stay within proficiency, else it completely removes any reason to take history or nature and similar proffesions.

Ofc everyone plays and DM's differently but I think it's silly that a feeble minded barbarian would possess the same knowledge as a learned man, learned man is smarter, blorgh knows how to break things better. :)

Blorgh would roll that check with no bonus, and the wizard at level 1 with 16 INT would roll it with a +5 bonus. A couple levels later, the wiz raises INT to 18, and his prof bonus goes up, so now he rolls with a +7 and Blorgh is still rolling without a bonus. This is exactly not the scenario that OP has a problem with, at least not how I'm reading the post. His issue is with Blorgh, the intelligent barbarian, who hasn't trained in history at all (is not proficient) but for whatever reason chose to put a 16 in INT, rolls at close to the same bonus as the level 1 wizard.

[Oramac]

OK, I admit I haven't read the entire thread, so I apologize if this has been suggested already.

How about this: for skill checks, double the proficiency bonus (not expertise) and halve the die rolled.

For example: a 4th level character by default has a +3 proficiency and would roll a d20 + prof + ability mod.

Instead, it changes to: +6 proficiency, but only rolling a d10. So you have d10 + 2x prof + ability.

A non-proficient character would simply roll d10 + ability.

In this way, the gap between proficient and non-proficient is larger, but there is still a remote chance that the non-proficient character can succeed on lower DC skill checks.

[CaptainSarathai]

Easiest Fix - players simply don't roll if their character wouldn't attempt it.
Like someone said with the Wizard and Barbarian, above. If they come across a boulder in their path, the Wizard tells the Barb to go and move the rock.

If the Barbarian throws the rock over his shoulder, and it lands on the Wizard's leg, crushing him to the ground - the Wizard is gonna try to roll that boulder off himself. He's not going to say, "oh, I'm not strong, oh woe is me."
This is why you have to allow non-proficient checks as part of the game. But players should have a reason to roll for it.

If that doesn't work (involved fix)
First, I ask who is willing to roll for something before they make the rolls. This way, nobody can metagame a low roll. I only allow someone to "retry" a roll if they have a better chance of success. Otherwise, something about the situation needs to change.

Using the boulder example above - Throgg the Barbarian took a Feat rather than going to Str18. He attempts to move the boulder with Athletics+3 and fails. Markus the Fighter has Str18, and thus Athletics+4, so he says, "I'm stronger than Throgg, maybe I can lift the boulder"
Now, if Markus cannot move the boulder, then something about the situation must change before anyone can attempt to use Athletics to move the boulder again. Perhaps Throgg and Markus work together, or perhaps the intelligent Wizard suggests that they use a tree branch as a lever.
The odds of success must increase, you cannot make another attempt at the same DC, with the same Bonuses.
There are times that I will bend this, and allow multiple rolls; usually in a "3-out-of-5" scenario like Death Saving Throws.

GateKeeping: Costs Inspiration
I also do gatekeep certain things. Particularly skills which require actual skill. I spell these skills out at the beginning of the campaign. They are:
Animal Handling
Arcana
History
Medicine
Nature
Performance
Religion
Slight of Hand
Survival
Tools, Instruments, Kits
Unless I agree as the DM that you can make a roll with this skill (based on your background, race, etc) then you cannot.

So Throgg is exploring ahead of the party and comes to a magical barrier. He wants to roll Arcana to learn more about the barrier. As DM, I ask:
"Why? What would Throgg know about magical barriers?"
At this point, the player could say something like,
"Well, maybe he's heard stories of barriers like this one, from his tribe? Or maybe the tribal shaman used to cast barriers like this at night, to protect the camps?"
If it seems reasonable that this could have happened, but might not have, then I will say,
"Go ahead and make the roll, but you need to give a point of Inspiration to do it"

Inspiration is a powerful tool for DMs, and one that I think they under-utilize. I don't let players give each other Inspiration (I've seen this get abused) but I give it out rather freely myself.

[Coffee_Dragon]

This sounds like all semantics at our table

I'm not sure that's what semantics means at our table. :smalltongue:


Boulder in the way, barbarian do your athletics

(Or rather vanilla Strength.)


It would never even cross my mind to say my 8 strength wizard will try to move the boulder.

Not even if the barbarian is on Ibiza? When the party consists of Str 8-12 characters are they helpless before boulders?


Same thing we found a glowing magic thingamajig, the barbarian player will never say let me study it, experiment with it, scan it with detect magic.

Presumably no one would have him cast Detect Magic without that mechanical option. The rules definitely give him the chance to fondle the item to learn its secrets. (My group has limited this ability with a house rule.) And a barbarian player should certainly get to say they want to examine an item suspected to be magical. Whether there's actually anything to be learned is up to the DM - but if there's anything to be learned by anyone from general knowledge, then the barbarian should be included in that anyone.


His issue is with Blorgh, the intelligent barbarian, who hasn't trained in history at all (is not proficient) but for whatever reason chose to put a 16 in INT, rolls at close to the same bonus as the level 1 wizard.

And that's only a problem with the unwarranted assumption that proficient = trained so that +6 proficient and +6 non-proficient have different mechanical significance. D&D casters do not need to be boosted with informal privileges because they are doing fine with their formal ones. (Although a nod to CaptainSarathai for being the first to suggest a privileged Dex skill?)

[Ruslan]

Using the boulder example above - Throgg the Barbarian took a Feat rather than going to Str18. He attempts to move the boulder with Athletics+3 and fails. Markus the Fighter has Str18, and thus Athletics+4, so he says, "I'm stronger than Throgg, maybe I can lift the boulder"
Now, if Markus cannot move the boulder, then something about the situation must change before anyone can attempt to use Athletics to move the boulder again.
Played straight, this could (and should) lead to metagaming-galore. Players would always start on the task with the weakest character, just to give the group the best chance. In the boulder example: always start with the wizard. Who knows, he might succeed! Then, Barbarian has a go. Then, Barbarian with Advantage due to Wizard's help. Then, Fighter. Then, Fighter with Advantage due to Barbarian's help.

Had the party started with the fighter receiving advantage due to lever or barbarian's help, a single bad roll would have doomed them to being unable to move the boulder.

It is silly, but your system practically begs for this type of abuse. Start with the worst possible chance, and slowly work your way up. Doing the logical thing and taking the way that has the most chances of success is punished.

[deathadder99]

On 13 January 3019 the Fellowship of the Ring entered Moria through the Doors, but initially Gandalf could not find out the password to open them. Merry Brandybuck unknowingly gave Gandalf the answer by asking, "What does it mean by speak, friend, and enter?" When Gandalf realized that the correct translation was "Say friend and enter" he sprang up, laughed, and said "Mellon", which means "friend" in Sindarin, and the Doors opened.

I know this doesn't help the debate... but sometimes it takes a simple person to see the simple solution.

If a barbarian makes an arcana or history check.... pat him on the back and buy him a mug of ale.

I see all the classes first as adventurers, and every character picks up stuff and IMO that's why they have a chance to succeed, same as 20th level mage scoring a critical hit.

This is exactly how I run it. I don't like making everyone roll generally, because that basically guarantees a success at my table of 8 people. However, I tend to choose people to roll and give everyone a chance to be in the spotloght.

I always pick the player(s) with the highest chance of success (invested in the skills), but I also pick another unproficient player usually just based on who's been involved the least. If there are multiple players with proficiency, I let them perform the help action and let them decide on who to actually make the roll. This makes "pooling" knowledge fair, and means that everyone who's actually invested in that skill gets a chance to shine.

If the "experts" fail, then the non-proficient character rolls. This often ends up as a failure, but if it succeeds then it's a great way of giving a character who otherwise feels useless some time in the spotlight. If the int 6 barbarian rolls a 17 on his arcana check, and remembers the McGuffin from a story his mother used to tell him as a child, then it's not like they suddenly know everything about the McGuffin - but they know enough to jog the memories of the "experts", which is enough to give the party the knowledge they need.

Banning people without proficiency from rolling outright is grossly unfair (and what if no one in the party has that skill?), and I find that getting everyone to roll for something tends to be tantamount to passing out an autosuccess. The numbers balance out quite well, and I don't mind non-proficient characters succeeding on a roll because with my system they will only get that chance after the "experts" have failed.

[JackPhoenix]

Does this really happen in other tables? This sounds like all semantics at our table we self gate we don't even need the DM to tell us not make a check. Boulder in the way, barbarian do your athletics, while my character would just watch on the sidelines. It would never even cross my mind to say my 8 strength wizard will try to move the boulder. Same thing we found a glowing magic thingamajig, the barbarian player will never say let me study it, experiment with it, scan it with detect magic.

This just seems so bassackwards to me to have everyone fighting to roll for a check when it is at many times quite obvious to decide who should roll as long as players are just keeping in character.

Agreed. I don't think I've ever had player asking to roll "inappropriate" check. Even when I asked for Religion to identify... I'm not sure what it was, holy symbol of some cult? with two characters with Religion proficiency in the party, one of them refused to roll, reasoning her character would have no way of knowing such thing, being monastery-raised orphan who mostly focused on her own faith and perhaps few most common "competitors", while the other was actually an inquisitor who's sole job was investigating various cults.

I also have no problem with using different skills at the same DC for the same stuff, or even giving different info on the same check based on character. When the group wanted to learn about a demon lord involved in their current situation, I gave them the optiion to roll History, Arcana or Religion, got Arcana and two Religion checks, and the character belonging to a religion opposed to said demon lord, another character secretly worshipping different, but similar demon lord and a character formaly trained in esoteric lore each learned something different, even if the results could all be summed up as "that thing is bad news and if it gets free from its prison, we and the whole continent is screwed". Paladin: "It's powerful, but it was imprisoned once and we can propably prevent it from escaping by doing the same thing that imprisoned it before", cultist: "It's more powerful than my boss, but less cunning and all about brute power, and also an enemy of my boss", mage: "These things are dangerous and mess up wide area around themselves, the trouble we're seeing means its prison is weakened, now we know what's going on and can work on a solution".

[Vogonjeltz]

Some people say only roll if there's a chance of failure/success; otherwise it's autofail/success. Different DMs have different opinions on when such a thing exists. One DM says no roll needed/can happen, another DM says a roll is needed.

Other people say anyone can roll whenever. Even the barbarian can roll Arcana, possibly reflecting some legend he heard once from the tribe's skald. Some would argue that gives the party Super Advantage since with 5 people rolling chances are someone will roll very high so why bother rolling in the first place?

Given there is going to be a roll of some kind, what's the DC? It depends on who is the DM and maybe his mood that day. It's easy, DC 10. No, it's hard, DC 20.

It's this inherent inconsistency that's the problem. That's relearning how to play the game. That's not knowing what my character can do.

"Some people say" isn't at all relevant to the question of whether the proposed change is a boon to the game or not, because what the rules actually are is a question of fact, not opinion.

The rules say to only roll if the outcome is in doubt (PHB 174; DMG Ch 8), and that everyone can roll:

PHB 173;
Ability scores are the measure of innate capabilities, training, and competence.
Advantage and Disadvantage are applied for favorable or unfavorable circumstances or specific game mechanics.

PHB 175; "If a character is proficient in Athletics, the character's proficiency bonus is added to the Strength check. If the character lacks that proficiency, he or she just makes a Strength check." Meaning that proficiency, in general, is not a gate to attempting something.

That a Barbarian might roll high doesn't mean they're going to succeed, indeed their potential for success might only be 1/20, in which case they only provide a marginal increase on the chances that someone knows something over and above what the others might.


Yes, I'm relearning. In Bob's game I can know legends easily. If I then join Joe's game suddenly I'm not so knowledgeable about legends, and I haven't even made a character yet. I can dump Intelligence and have no proficiency yet still know legends 50% of the time in Bob's game. In Joe's game it's suddenly 20%. It's a different game of playing 5E. I haven't done anything and already my character is more ignorant.

And so is everyone. DCs are like a rising tide.


The odds of success must increase, you cannot make another attempt at the same DC, with the same Bonuses.

This doesn't make any sense to me, especially as the only cost of trying again, in many cases, is time invested. (i.e. Try, try again).

[Asmotherion]

Well, I never do this, but if you want to, you can always add +5 to the DC of unproficient skill checks. This is more than enough to create the gap you want beteen a Proficient and Non-Proficient Check.

[Spectre9000]

I've only perused the first page and skimmed some other comments, so forgive me if I say something thats already been covered, but the easy conclusion seems to be for people who dont like how the skill system works to simply not play 5th edition. I'm not being cynical. 5th is built around the concept that everyone has a chance to do great things.

So that 4 int Barbarian can recall one of the few random tidbits of info he's picked up through his life experiences and save the day after the 22 (with tome) int wizard that somehow has expertise in the subject didnt know. This is based on the principle that everyone has different experiences.

The fact is 5th isnt about god characters. No one can know everything and, conversely, no one can know nothing. That's what's represented in this edition. Personally I like this as it adds more dynamic between characters and players get an unexpected moment to shine. If someone always needs to be in the spotlight, because they feel they should always be better than someone else, this is the wrong edition for that.

[jas61292]

This doesn't make any sense to me, especially as the only cost of trying again, in many cases, is time invested. (i.e. Try, try again).

I disagree with this. While it works fine for ability contests, in general, I think the skill system works far, far better if a check represents a characters ability to complete a task, rather than a single attempt. After all, unless you are actively in the middle of a fight, and about to die if you do not succeed right away, there is no point in even making a check if you can succeed with enough time. Calling for such rolls is bad DMing practice.

With relation to this thread as a whole, I actually think the "ability, not attempt" model of skills can be used to solve a lot of issues. Make a check represent the ability to succeed at a task, and if that roll fails, do not allow any more rolls unless the characters do something to increase their odds. And that is their odds as a party, not as an individual. This doesn't do anything to change those cases where multiple characters might make an attempt at the same time (such as seeing what they know about a rune with an Arcana check), but it would help deal with situations like the Wizard moving a boulder that the barbarian cannot. What I mean is that, if the barbarian tries to move the boulder and fails, that is it. The wizard cannot attempt it and hope for success, because the wizard trying does not improve the parties in world chances of success (assuming a weak wizard and a buff barbarian). Now that said, this does require a bit of DM fiat to prevent metagaming. No, you cannot have everyone try in order of least likely to most likely to succeed, in order to "increase your odds." Though, the simplest way to handle this is to just say you get one roll for your party. If the wizard wants to try first and rolls an 8, that's OK, but unless the barbarian or someone else can succeed with that 8, the party fails at the task. The game presents a way to improve odds with the Help mechanic. You should never be able to abuse numbers (in a situation where numbers shouldn't really help) to give yourself better odds than the mechanics would otherwise allow, and limiting the party to a single roll for any task that cannot have separate resulting effects for different creatures, is a way to do that.

[MeeposFire]

Well, I never do this, but if you want to, you can always add +5 to the DC of unproficient skill checks. This is more than enough to create the gap you want beteen a Proficient and Non-Proficient Check.

I mentioned something similar but I would have to disagree with this implementation. I think making the DC different can make sense in certain applications but a blanket change to the DC I feel misses the point of how the system works.

For instance pushing a large generic rock should probably be seen as the same difficulty since it would be unlikely to see how proficiency in the skill would lead to a change in base difficulty.

Some other skills I could see it though at certain times but I think the key is to decide whether the additional practice/training/whatever you consider proficiency to be will make the base difficulty easier. If you don't see one then the DC should be the same.

[Potato_Priest]

Do you find equally horrific when the wizard swings a maul with 8 strength and crits for 4d6 damage? Do you say, well, you're not proficient with the maul, so you can't crit and if the enemy has AC greater than 10 you automatically miss?

That's not quite the same thing. That's an in-combat ability, and in combat, anything can happen. However, what is even more annoying than Grog knowing the intricacies of acrane lore is when the 20 str half orc fighter finds himself unable to break down a door, and then the 10 str gnome wizard walks up and kicks it down with a crit.

I think that using passive scores most of the time for knowlege and door kicking is the way to go, but for something really obscure, go ahead and roll. If Grog knows it, have him give an explanation.

[Tanarii]

I disagree with this. While it works fine for ability contests, in general, I think the skill system works far, far better if a check represents a characters ability to complete a task, rather than a single attempt. After all, unless you are actively in the middle of a fight, and about to die if you do not succeed right away, there is no point in even making a check if you can succeed with enough time. Calling for such rolls is bad DMing practice.You may disagree, but the DMG says that if there is no consequence for failure other than needing more time, then don't make a check. It's an automatic success and take ten times as long.

So if you're calling for a check in that case, you're doing something the game explicitly tell you not to do. And if you're only allowing one check because reasons (which you are), you're also doing something the game explicitly doesn't intend to be done.

That's why it doesn't make sense.

Edit: I agree that there don't need to always be 'round by round' checks. For example, look at how charisma checks are used in social interaction. There's all the talking, then the DM determines if a single check is needed at the end, then reaction happens. But you only get one check, because circumstances have changed (the other side has made a decision one way or the other), and it's no longer possible to succeed. If you're talking about something like that, then yes, a check is needed and there really only needs to be one for the entire thing.

[mephnick]

so forgive me if I say something thats already been covered, but the easy conclusion seems to be for people who dont like how the skill system works to simply not play 5th edition. I'm not being cynical.

That's the true answer, which I've already pointed out, but apparently you're not allowed to say this or people will feel bad that the new edition everyone is playing doesn't exactly suit their interests and they may have to compromise. Like, just go back and play 3.5, no one is stopping you. Except for the progression of the hobby in general I suppose.

[Corsair14]

Or simply house rule how you do it since all rules are arbitrary to the DM.

[Hawkstar]

I think the problem here is everyone's way too caught up on the Intelligence checks, and trying to use them as the benchmark by which all skill checks should be measured when that's clearly not the case. Remember - Ability checks are for deciding whether or not a person can succeed on taking an action they specify wanting to take when the outcome is unknown.

[mephnick]

Or simply house rule how you do it since all rules are arbitrary to the DM.

Sure, as long as you make it clear to your players that by changing it too much (denying/increasing skill checks based on proficiency) you are defeating the intended purpose of the entire skill system and they're ok with that. Everything is arbitrary to the DM but at some point you're working against the system to be something it's not when there are other systems out there that better suit your needs.

[Potato_Priest]

So if you don't allow Barbarians to make Arcana checks when they're not proficient, then you might as well go ahead and slide down that slippery slope and tell Wizards they aren't allowed to make attack rolls with weapons they aren't proficient with.

No, I might as well tell the wizard that he's not going to be able to break down a door or do a massive flying leap across a chasm because his strength is 8. It's a much more fair comparison.

[Vogonjeltz]

I disagree with this. While it works fine for ability contests, in general, I think the skill system works far, far better if a check represents a characters ability to complete a task, rather than a single attempt. After all, unless you are actively in the middle of a fight, and about to die if you do not succeed right away, there is no point in even making a check if you can succeed with enough time. Calling for such rolls is bad DMing practice.

With relation to this thread as a whole, I actually think the "ability, not attempt" model of skills can be used to solve a lot of issues. Make a check represent the ability to succeed at a task, and if that roll fails, do not allow any more rolls unless the characters do something to increase their odds. And that is their odds as a party, not as an individual. This doesn't do anything to change those cases where multiple characters might make an attempt at the same time (such as seeing what they know about a rune with an Arcana check), but it would help deal with situations like the Wizard moving a boulder that the barbarian cannot. What I mean is that, if the barbarian tries to move the boulder and fails, that is it. The wizard cannot attempt it and hope for success, because the wizard trying does not improve the parties in world chances of success (assuming a weak wizard and a buff barbarian). Now that said, this does require a bit of DM fiat to prevent metagaming. No, you cannot have everyone try in order of least likely to most likely to succeed, in order to "increase your odds." Though, the simplest way to handle this is to just say you get one roll for your party. If the wizard wants to try first and rolls an 8, that's OK, but unless the barbarian or someone else can succeed with that 8, the party fails at the task. The game presents a way to improve odds with the Help mechanic. You should never be able to abuse numbers (in a situation where numbers shouldn't really help) to give yourself better odds than the mechanics would otherwise allow, and limiting the party to a single roll for any task that cannot have separate resulting effects for different creatures, is a way to do that.

The system as it is is to model attempts;

That being said, you could use the variant of Ignoring the Dice (DMG 236) if you prefer it that way, where the players just describe all their actions and you adjudicate what happens with chance (d20 and other dice rolls) not being a factor at all.

Although that could certainly be fun, it's not how I like to play D&D. For me the randomness of dice add to the game. The other drawback of the ability not attempt model that you mention is that a character would simply always/never be able to do something, which strikes me as incongruous with my expectations for how a fictional reality would work.

[Ruslan]

With relation to this thread as a whole, I actually think the "ability, not attempt" model of skills can be used to solve a lot of issues.The "ability, not attempt" model is best represented by passive skills. If you have level of ability X, you achieve the task, eventually. If you don't have it, you don't.

[furby076]

I'd give the non "trained" characters less information. They heard tidbits, but thats it. Frankly, in a group of 4 to 6, chances are someone will make the DC. So giving the less educated information with gaps is reasonable.

I play a paladin with 8 int....i rolled very low, but dm refused to have him get less than 8. His back story is he was the stereotypical highschool jock. Great looking, athletic, and dumb. When we come up on skill checks that are knowledge based, i remind the dm to give me smattering of info. If its a highly technical question, i dont even bother rolling. If its about military tactics, or nobility (he was heir to a Lords house), then I'm all in.

So, my suggestion is if the players want to rp their characters they can do what i do...its fun, and lets other players shine (we have a sherlock holmes type character). Otherwise, just give different information for different characters. The DM should make the rolls anyhow

[furby076]

Well it sounds like the OP's players are resistant to changing it so their ability scores matter less. It may just be that it is time for the group to find a new GM that is happy to play with the rules that the group seem happy with.

I hate this answer of : leave the group. Thats just childish really, and referenced almost every time someone has a table issue they need help with. It provides zero value. First, the player knows they can quit. Second, this is the last and most extreme option to conflict resolution, and is typically considered the poorest choice. Third, this sounds like a small issue for that group. If its the biggest problem they have, then he group is fine.

This is such a pet peeve of mine. Probably one of the reasons divorce rates are so high. Let's just quit when someone disagrees with us

[ClearlyTough69]

Substitute a d10 for the d20 and halve all DCs (rounding up). Voila!

This has the effect of giving much greater weight to skill modifiers (ability modifier and proficiency bonus), so reducing the chances of characters that are weak at a skill outshining those that are strong at it. But that chance still exists!

Taking the barbarian and the wizard and their Arcana check, if the DC was originally 15 it is now 8. To succeed, the barbarian (Arcana -1) must roll a 9 or 10 (20% chance) whereas the wizard (Arcana +5) must roll a 3 or better (80% chance). The difference between them is now 60 percentage points, whereas with RAW it's 35 percentage points.